[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
How do others *understand* the word *shapes* used in the phrase *shapes of
consciousness* which can be *traced* historically?
Then understanding Vygotsky, Kant, Hegel, as *shaping consciousness* views
their projects not as locating some pre-existing underlying structure that
exists transcendent to the temporal, but an active "shaping* of
consciousness which becomes expressed within emerging (and
sedimented) *ways of life*.
These ways of life can be reflected on, traced, made partially
self-conscious, but in the tracings, consciousness shifts its shape.
Meaning-making then becomes this process of tracing ways of life to see
through the shapes of consciousness and THIS tracing alters the very
consciousness which is being traced?.
I suppose THIS process of shaping can be called a type of structure? But it
is not an intentional construction or designed structure. It is more
circular.
Just wondering
Larry
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Achilles Delari Junior <
achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Martin exposes better than me the core point. Thank you Martin. Achilles.
>
> > From: packer@duq.edu
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo
> Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
> > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:07:46 +0000
> >
> > Yes, couldn't we take LSV to be saying that an analysis of "meaning" is
> central to the scientific study of consciousness? Just as Marx considered
> an analysis of "value" to be central to the scientific study of capitalist
> society? And then Thought and Language would be an illustration of such an
> analysis - of meaning as it circulates through the word, the concept, the
> thought...
> >
> > Doesn't seem so hyperbolic to me.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On Apr 23, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Achilles Delari Junior <
> achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Anton,
> > >
> > > I agree with the repetition of the use of "hyperbole" as language
> figure in Vygotsky's texts is a fact that difficult textual analysis (oh,
> if can exist such a thing like a method of "textual analysis"). Really, for
> instance, there are many "central problems" of psychology in Vygotsky
> different works ("mediated action", "freedom", "higher psychological
> functions"...). But, if you take "meaningful word" as analytic unit for
> "consciousness [problematic] problem" (if it is posed as a "problem", we
> can suppose that is problematic, don't we?), is not without propose, nor
> sou chimeric, to quest for "A" (not necessarily "THE", even because in
> Russian there is no such grammatical class: "definite article" or
> "indefinite article") kind of method of analysis. Leaving this aim totally
> out of our research goals also is not so interesting, because
> interpretative task can fall in relativistic proceeding, and nothing will
> make really any sense beyond that of the own introspection of the subject
> and of the researcher. The studies from Vygotsky and Sakharov, Vygotsky and
> Shif, was some kind of attempt to understand the development of meaning
> (this is a semantic aspect of human life), and indirectly, the
> [problematic] development of consciousness, through its unit of analysis,
> for instance. You can not study directly the hole "mysterious character"
> of consciousness, but you even can study of object of analysis of
> psychology through it's clues, semiotic "indexes". Nobody will know
> directly how really is a simple "atom", even so, some guys try to
> understand objectively it through its manifestations, reconstructing
> theoretically the way from inside to outside and vice versa - this is a
> more moderate Vygotsky's analogy that we find in "Historical sense of the
> crisis of psychology", for instance...
> > >
> > > Vygotsky uses several "hyperbolic" statements, but he was not so fool,
> to take this so literally. Also not me, naive but no so fool...
> > >
> > > Болшое спасибо. До свиданиа.
> > >
> > > Achilles.
> > >
> > > P.S. And about the creation of a new kind of biological socialist
> human being, I completely agree with you, this was a serious mistake,
> "nonsense dream".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:21 -0700
> > >> From: the_yasya@yahoo.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo
> Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
> > >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>
> > >> It is absolutely impossible to disagree with Rauno's comment. Indeed,
> the "semicheskii analiz" of Vygotskii
> > >>
> > >> is one of those programmatic statements, quite characteristic of this
> person, who, inter alia, would repeatedly claim that
> > >>
> > >> QUOTE
> > >>
> > >> The new society will create the new man.
> > >> When one mentions the remolding of man as an indisputable trait of
> the new mankind and
> > >> the artificial creation of a new biological type,
> > >> then this will be the only and first species in biology which will
> create itself...
> > >>
> > >> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri14.htm
> > >>
> > >> END of QUOTE
> > >>
> > >> Indeed, such--and similar utopian and programmatic, yet thoroughly
> and hopelessly scientifically ungrounded--
> > >> Vygotskii's statements are not to be taken for granted.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So, regardless of whether we agree or disagree (i.e., fully agree?
> mainly agree? partially agree?
> > >> disagree on most points? fundamentally disagree in virtually any
> respect?) with Vygotskii,
> > >> the really meaningful question,
> > >>
> > >> I believe, is what exactly, *ACCORDING to VYGOTSKII*, is the
> > >> "Semiotic [and/or "semantic" = semicheskyj] analysis" that, yet again
> according to this guy,
> > >> "is the only adequate method for the study of the systemic and
> semantic structure of consciousness."
> > >>
> > >> And, more specifically, how exactly did ipse Vygotskii perform this
> kind of analysis?
> > >>
> > >> The answer, I guess, is as follows:
> > >> Vygotskii DID NOT KNOW how exactly perform this "the only" analysis,
> and in this respect
> > >> he did not go much further his usual programmatic, but pretty void
> from scholarly standpoint statements.
> > >>
> > >> So, if we dismiss the numerous "Vygotskian", including Wertsch's,
> > >> interpretations of the Master's Teaching as irrelevant to our main
> question here, --
> > >> on the excellent criticism of the "Vygotskians" see Miller's
> "Vygotsky in perspective"
> > >> http://upbo.com/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781107412477&ss=fro--
> > >>
> > >> then the three points made here previously are very much worth
> considering:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Nobody (even ipse Vygotsky!) has invented a method which reveals
> the structures of consciousness.
> > >> 2. The very concept of consciousness is ... empirically ...
> problematic.
> > >> 3. There is no single method that would reveal the secrets of
> consciousness.
> > >>
> > >> Good luck with the search for meaning anyway! Perhaps, some
> Gestaltists' work will help?
> > >> If interested feel free to check the link:
> http://psyhistorik.livejournal.com/80047.html --
> > >> most stuff in Russian, but some references in English are certainly
> of help.
> > >> Also, you might want to explore how those Russian guys attempted to
> do the
> > >> "semicheskii analiz" to the extent they understood this idea roughly
> in mid-1930s.
> > >> But in order to do this, one needs to be able to read Russian, too.
> Yet again,
> > >> see the entry, it might help:
> http://psyhistorik.livejournal.com/80047.html
> > >>
> > >> Good luck again! ;)
> > >>
> > >> AY
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> > >> To: "xmca@weber.ucsd.edu" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:56:11 AM
> > >> Subject: RE: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis". Can
> you help me?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you. This problematic concept is the object of study for
> Vygotsky's psychology. This is the problem for those people who agree with
> Vygotsky.
> > >> Achilles.
> > >>
> > >>> From: rakahu@utu.fi
> > >>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis". Can
> you help me?
> > >>> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:43:28 +0000
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> You should not take Vygotsky's remark (the only adequate method for
> the study of the systemic and semantic structure of consciousness) so
> seriously. Nobody has invented a method which reveals the of structures of
> consciousness. The very concept of consciousness is both empirically and
> philosophically problematic. There is no single method that would reveal
> the secrets of consciousness.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rauno Huttunen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Achilles Delari Junior
> > >>> Sent: 23. huhtikuuta 2013 7:29
> > >>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> Subject: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis". Can you
> help me?
> > >>>
> > >>> Greetings for all,
> > >>>
> > >>> Please, I understand that I have a major methodological problem in
> my nearest research project: "how to understand human making-sense through
> the concrete acts of a person's speech?". Along many years I had thought
> about Vygotsky's claim that ""Semiotic [and/or "semantic" = semicheskyj]
> analysis is the only adequate method for the study of the systemic and
> semantic structure of consciousness." (see
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-consciousness.htm).
> But it is not so clear how to proceed "Semiotic/semantic analysis". Then,
> if you pleased, could somebody help me, shining my mind about the
> (im)possibilities about somebody really learn *how to do* such kind of
> analysis? Here in Brazil, close to me, there is nobody working with
> something in this direction, then I have no local resources to ask for...
> Forgive me about the naive character of the question, but I really want to
> learn about.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you very much, once more. Best wishes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Achilles from Brazil.
> > >>>
> > >>> __________________________________________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>> __________________________________________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >> __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >> __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca