Thank you for the message !
To tell you the truth I did not know Vasilyuk is alive . It's Mike
who
knows all this . And it is not the first time vasilyuk's work and the
'perezhivanie' are being discussed as you can see from what Dot
Robbins
came up against very long ago (Notes on Perezhivanie-third link to
the end)
. Mike has also had his different denotational (literal) as well as
connotational psychological features of the term , too . Andy
maybe takes
Michael Levikh back to that time . But you did a very good thing to
introduce the 'scribd' version to us to read before Mike could
give a push
to all mechanical as well as technological devices and
possibilities for a
pdf version . Thanks really ! Amazon presents it with what we can
call the
'juice of our personality' :-) . Dollar here just not soars but
really
uproars ! You were lucky with that little book , dear .
Yes , Vasilyuk happily proved to be alive . I sent him a message and
unluckily conveyed the idea with full respect and rejoice . He is now
charged with all kinds of responsibilities . We wish him great
success . I
asked him if he is still 'loyal' to his own writing . He has not
provided a
reply yet . What you found is included among and along some other
articles
in the first issue of the said journal . I don't know Russian and the
translations are limited to the contents of the web pages .
As about to the extent to which Jack Whitehead could approach
himself to
the 'activity theory proper' , there could be lots of debate . But
I read
it to the end and listened to the talks and ,between ourselves,
there was a
mother-tongue translation of Mandelstam's poem plus some other
good things
which looked a bit strange (unexpected) within that context . I
have a
political piece by a V.A.Petrovsky of whose identity I'm not sure .
Psychologically speaking , Petrovsky is not a no fame name , by
the way .
Sorry for the unintentional excess talk !
Regards
Haydi
______________________________**__
From: Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>
To: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind,
Culture,
Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012,
6:56:18
Subject: Re: [xmca] varying definitions of perezhivanie
Dear Haydi,
Your first two links go to Jack Whitehead's work. I met Jack through
his interpretation of 'living contradiction' - which in the
conditions of
educational practice becomes an agonistic problem-structuring
around 'how
can I? . For me this 'I' reflects conditions of practice where
enquirers
begin in an 'unempowered' reflection - not conditions of activity
theoretical development. It is possible maybe that a journey can
arise and
expand from there....
However, despite encountering Jack's work, i did not encounter
Vasilyuk
from his writing ar in discussion with him- rather I became
interested in
work I found appearing here as I express and set out in a message to
another who knew of him:
"I was looking on
this database at the topics being worked on in this journal:
http://psyjournals.ru/en/sps/**2011/n1/44335.shtml<http://psyjournals.ru/en/sps/2011/n1/44335.shtml>
Mainly because the website translates into english. I can't recall
exactly how I focused on him in particular , but I went to his web
page and the book title looked interesting, so I found it in a second
hand bookshop. ( It has a dedication -by the author I think) £7.77.
When it came I couldn't believe what I encounterd brought together -
still haven't been able to read it 'fully', as I want to notice
what I
notice (
if you know what I mean - I don't want to 'lose' it).
So I held back and then 'googled' him/the work - unbelievably I found
Jack Whitehead had been writing about him... That was the order of
encounter. I did not read Jack's page - just enought to wonder if he
grabbed a bit in a form useful to him at the time ( perhaps no harm -
but potentially devastating if it's dissociated from its relations
and
future students etc will 'hit into it') - and that is not my interest
[directly]...
My interest is to work through how he brings 'value' - not to follow
him but to 'imagine' myself how that impacts the dynamics of -motive
( and therefore all other relations) BUT this is to see if it
explains
my difficulty, and I think that will be productive."
At that point I set out my question re biography to Andy- and I
need to
revisit that.
Christine
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Haydi Zulfei <
haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Andy ! In my view , whom I always consider just as a naive
reader , a very illuminating synopsis coming out of a deep
understanding
of the 'activity theory' . The 'scribed' version though so much
scrambled
partially .
Your synopsis caused me to google 'fyodor vasilyuk' . Some links
came
up , three of which of likely interest . Forgive if redundancy is
at work !
Haydi
http://search.speedbit.com/r.**aspx?aff=&p=0&u=http://wzuy1.**
ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=**spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=**
0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=**E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485C**
F8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=**121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=**
gs&io=1&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=%**3Cb%3EFyodor+Vasilyuk%3C%2Fb%**
3E+%281991%29+The+Psychology+**of+Experiencing%3A+th<http://search.speedbit.com/r.aspx?aff=&p=0&u=http://wzuy1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485CF8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=gs&io=1&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=%3Cb%3EFyodor+Vasilyuk%3C%2Fb%3E+%281991%29+The+Psychology+of+Experiencing%3A+th>
e+%3Cb%3E...%3C%2Fb%3E&ex=&**url=&u=http://www.**
http://search.speedbit.com/r.**aspx?aff=&p=0&u=http://wzuy1.**
ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=**spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=**
0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=**E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485C**
F8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=**121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=**
gs&io=5&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=**Notes+on+perezhivanie&ex=&url=**
&u=http://www.ethicalpolitics.**org/seminars/perezhivanie.htm<http://search.speedbit.com/r.aspx?aff=&p=0&u=http://wzuy1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485CF8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=gs&io=5&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=Notes+on+perezhivanie&ex=&url=&u=http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/perezhivanie.htm>
______________________________**__
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 4:01:27
Subject: Re: [xmca] varying definitions of perezhivanie
Michael, Haydi, Christine and others, thank you for drawing my
attention to Fyodor Vasilyuk. Just read his book and loved it.
It's one of
those books that even though you can follow it as you read, it is
not easy
to recall afterwards. Anyway, here is my synopsis.
*The Psychology of Experiencing*. The Resolution of Life’s Critical
Situations. by Fyodor Vasiluk Progress Publishers 1984.
This is a book about living through critical situations in life.
“Experiencing” is a translation of “/perezhivanie/” and Vasilyuk
uses it to
mean “any process which brings about resolution of a critical
life-situation, irrespective of how that process is directly felt
by the
individual.” Vasilyuk is an Activity Theorist, and sees
experiencing as an
activity, not just something to which happens to a person, but that
hitherto Activity Theory had no term for it. So he has appropriated
Vygotsky’s use of the term as a unit for the development of
character. But
I notice that for Vasilyuk, /perezhivanie /is the whole “working
through”
of the crisis situation, which is elsewhere called “catharsis,”
whereas
what others call the /perezhivanie /he calls the
crisis-situation. The
situation is of course equally subjective and objective, arising
in the
world, as it is experienced by the subject according to the
subject’s
commitments in the
world as well as uncontrolled events arising from the objective
world.
Vasilyuk is a superb dialectician. Experiencing is the process in
which
character is formed, but also, it is the process of character
itself: both
process and product.
The main part of the book hinges on the idea that the inner world of
the subject, the active side which cognizes, feels, perceives and
acts may
be either /simple/ or /complex/; the outer world of the subject, the
subject’s life-world is either /easy/ or /difficult/. It is not
so much
that there are two kinds of inner and outer world, but that any
specific
crisis is derived from one of the four possible conjunctions:
simple-easy,
complex-easy, simple-difficult or complex-difficult. Each possible
conjunction also contains the others, but one conjunction is
dominant in
the specific case.
Vasilyuk calls an activity a “life relation” but so far as I can see
the word “project” perfectly describes what he has in mind. A
simple inner
world means that the crisis arises from the pursuit of just one
activity
and has no implication for any other project. A complex inner
world means
that the subject is motivated by multiple projects so that
changes in the
progress of one project has implications for other projects (eg
they may be
conflicting, or dependent on one another) and resolving a crisis
becomes
something complex in that sense. An easy outer world means that
the crisis
arises from inner causes, not existential threats to the project or
blockages having their origin independently of the subject. A
difficult
outer world means that a project in which the subject is
committed faces a
blockage or disaster.
Vasilyuk goes through all the possible combinations of strategies
that
subjects resort to to resolve a crisis arising in each of these four
worlds, and there are all sorts of sub-types, etc. These
categories are
ahistorical so Vasilyuk is able to explore the possibilities by
logical
means rather than abstracting them from empirical data. Of course
the
circumstances which give rise to crises and the strategies
available to
subjects are culturally and historically determined. But analysis
of a
crisis and therapeutical assistance depends first of all in
diagnosing the
kind of crisis the subject is undergoing. So the elaboration of
the theory
is very logical, but one gets the feeling that Vasilyuk has had
the benefit
of the experience of offering assistance to thousands of people
going
through severe crises and that his theory is robust as a
diagnostic tool.
The four kinds of crisis are (simple-easy) stress,
(simple-difficult)
frustration, (complex-easy) conflict and (complex-difficult)
crisis. He
says that /stress /is a “hedonistic” crisis – the subject is
concerned only
with the here and now and getting more; /frustration /is a
“realistic”
crisis – the subject has to accept the unattainability of the
object and
determine what it is they /really/ need, not just the specific
thing which
has the meaning for them of their object; /conflict /is a "crisis of
values" – the subject is obliged to revisit the bases for their past
actions and question their values which have led them into a tragic
situation; crisis as such is a creative crisis, which obliges the
subject
to transform the meaning of the absent object so as to make the
psychologically impossible situation possible; this means a
life-crisis
resolved by creating a new life-world, a new self. This is all
very complex
and I can’t do it
justice. It will take a lot of study. I like the way he deals
with the
concept of "values" as deep structures, underlying commitments
which can be
brought to light only by a subject's /perezihivanie/.
The section on psychotherapy relied on a different categorisation of
four “levels of awareness.” These are the Unconscious,
Experiencing (here
in the ordinary meaning of the word, more like Undergoing),
Reflection, and
Apprehension. This structure of consciousness or awareness is
defined by
the activity of the Observer and the Observed (a bit like Mead's
I and Me).
Crises may be felt in one (mainly at the given moment) “level”
and Vasilyuk
says that a different therapeutic strategy is required in each
case. In the
case of the Unconscious, it is a /monologue by the therapist /who
tells the
patient what the break in consciousness reveals; in the case of
Undergoing
it is a /monologue by the patient /who gives voice to their
experience so
as to become aware of it, with the empathy of the therapist, can
move it
into Reflection; in Apprehension therapy requires a /dialogue
/between the
therapist and the patience to bring out the nature of the
crisis;