Re: [xmca] about emotions

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Thanks Jay for the extended conversation.
I'm glad that Cooley caught your imagination in the same way I experienced reading about his journey.
He sure was swimming in the same ocean that we are currently traversing but I wasn't sure if anyone else would have a similar "sympathetic" response to the readings.  My sense is that Cooley would have a more responsive hearing in todays fertile discourses which are breaking down disciplinary barriers and expanding everyone's horizon of understanding.

Larry


----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Well, "wondering and curious" is a good feeling-place to be!
> 
> I do not know of Cooley, but I feel a strong similarity to the 
> work of  
> Kenneth Burke. Burke wrote in and for the humanistic 
> disciplines,  
> where such perspectives were much more welcome, but since the 
> 60s or  
> 70s, I think Burke has come to have considerable influence in 
> the  
> humanistic turn in the social sciences, especially given 
> its  
> linguistic and discursive foundations.
> 
> It would be interesting to know more of Cooley's view of 
> the  
> individual-societal relation, as it sounds pretty radical. And 
> also  
> how he develops this in relation to the different timescales, 
> which  
> resonates with my own recent views, and those Mike Cole has 
> expressed  
> for a long time now.
> 
> I'm going to google Cooley and Burke together and see what happens!
> 
> JAY.
> 
> Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> 
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 1:08 PM, lpurss wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jay
> > I want to take another stab at emotions from another discourse (not
> > relational psychoanalysi) but rather symbolic 
> interactionism  
> > (pragmatism)
> > and the contrasting approaches to emotion between George 
> Herbert  
> > Mead and
> > Charles Horton Cooley.
> > I've just finished reading a fascinating article by Glenn 
> Jacobs  
> > titled
> > "Influence and Canonical Supremacy: An Analysis of How 
> George  
> > Herbert Mead
> > Demoted Charles Horton Cooley in the Sociological Canon" 
> published  
> > in The
> > Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 
> 45(2), pages
> > 117-144 Spring,2009
> > Jacobs' article points out that the contrasting discursive 
> styles of  
> > Mead's
> > and Cooley's writings was instrumental in Mead being seen as 
> the  
> > founding
> > father of symbolic interactionism and Cooley becoming just a 
> footnote.> Jacobs believes Cooley's writing was expressed in a 
> literary  
> > essayist style
> > while Mead's theories were articulated in a more social 
> scientific  
> > style of
> > discourse.
> > Following is an extended summary of some of Jacobs major 
> points of the
> > consequences of these different styles or ways of 
> knowing.  Remember  
> > these
> > scholars were writing at the turn of the last century into 
> the  
> > 1920's so
> > their vocabulary may be dated but the themes they discuss seem very
> > contemporary.
> > Cooley conceived the social in a LITERARY sense, as a matter 
> of  
> > SHIFTING
> > PERSPECTIVES to understand social phenomena on three scalar levels
> > (micro=self) (meso=primary group) (macro=institutions) Society 
> and the
> > individual are "simply collective and distributive aspects of 
> the same
> > thing" the difference between them being "rather in our point 
> of  
> > view than
> > in the object we are looking at" (cooley, 1922) "SElf and 
> society go
> > together, as phases of a common whole. For Cooley 
> communication was
> > foundational as he states "public opinion is no mere aggregate 
> of  
> > separate
> > individual judgements, but an organization, a cooperative 
> product of
> > communication and reciprocal influence." Its unity "is not one 
> of  
> > identity,
> > but of life and action" (Cooley 1909)
> > Jacobs points out the reason Cooley's ideas were not given 
> the  
> > status of
> > Mead's ideas were because he PLACED FEELING AT THE CENTER of social
> > processes and the formation of the self (in contrast to Mead's more
> > logocentric perspective which focused on the VERBAL gesture)
> > Cooley conceived of the intellectual process and the work of 
> science  
> > and
> > WRITING in a very different way than Mead. For Cooley 
> human  
> > intelligence is
> > DRAMATIC AND SCENARIC, meeting difficulties through the 
> formulation  
> > of fresh
> > lines of action. "It is, then, essentially a kind of 
> foresight, a  
> > mental
> > reaction that anticipates the operation of forces at work and 
> is  
> > prepared in
> > advance to adjust to them" Intelligence is "inseparably bound 
> up with
> > communication and discussion" (Cooley, 1918)  For 
> Cooley  
> > intelligence is
> > DRAMATIC in character and is required to forecast how they 
> will  
> > react to one
> > another and how the situation will work out. Cooley wrote 
> "the  
> > literary
> > drama, including fiction and whatever other forms have a 
> dramatic  
> > character,
> > may be regarded as INTELLIGENCE striving to interpret the 
> social  
> > process BY
> > ART." (1918)
> > However Cooley's analyzing social process as METAPHORICALLY 
> weaving  
> > the
> > process into a DRAMATURGICAL - SYMPATHETIC conception of  
> the  
> > operation of
> > intelligence in action was a discursive position that was not 
> well  
> > received
> > in the 1920's when positivist science models of social process 
> were  
> > gaining
> > status in academic departments. Mead's discursive style, laced 
> with  
> > the the
> > rhetoric of science dimissed Cooley's literary discursive 
> style and  
> > its
> > rhetorical expression as MERE SOCIAL COMMENTARY
> > As Jacobs points out if we interpret writing as behavior, we 
> can also
> > interpret writing STYLE as a kind of cultural form and writers 
> as BOTH
> > CREATORS AND INSTRUMENTS OF this cultural form. However style 
> may  
> > determine
> > the inclusion or exclusion of a writer within a disciplinary 
> canon.  
> > In a
> > sense as Jacob's article elaborates Cooley's open avowal of 
> a  
> > literary style
> > "could be interpreted as inviting the criticism of fellow 
> social  
> > scientists"
> > (p.132)  who in the 1920'2 were staking out disciplinary 
> discourses  
> > which
> > privleged objective data analysis. Cooley's sociology, his 
> writing  
> > style,
> > and his intellectual self-concept derived in great measure 
> from a  
> > different
> > intellectual context which emraced the literary essay 
> style.  Jacob's
> > elaborates in his article how the essay TRADITION stresses 
> the  
> > CENTRALITY of
> > the CONVERSING subject, an autobiographical approach, and a 
> DIALOGIC  
> > or
> > INTERTEXTUAL focus on the importance of the impact of the 
> reader and  
> > other
> > texts on the writer and the written product. This reframe 
> of  the  
> > writing
> > process points to recognition of STYLE AS PERSON (Jacobs, 
> quoting  
> > Green
> > p132) Green, in discussing Cooley's writing style points out 
> that  
> > for Cooley
> > "a text is an emergent organization of meanings, within 
> which  
> > nothing is
> > FIXED and where origin is absent" (Green, 1988,quoted in 
> Jacobs, p. 
> > 132)
> >> From this literary standpoint Cooley would be a voice in 
> the  
> >> wilderness of
> > positivist science discourse.
> > Both Mead and Cooley discuss "taking the role of the other" 
> but Cooley
> > discribed this human capacity of taking the perspective of the 
> other  
> > as a
> > process of SYMPATHY, the FOUNDATIONAL element in his 
> construction of  
> > the
> > "looking glass self. For Cooley the self is founded on the 
> human  
> > species
> > RECEPTIVITY OF FEELING and the SYMPATHETIC CAPACITY to 
> register or  
> > perceive
> > the FEELINGS OF OTHERS toward oneself, which entails a 
> REFLECTIVE  
> > PROCESS
> > which results in SELF- FEELING Cooley's looking glass self 
> integrates> FEELING into the process matrix of self-formation 
> within the larger  
> > context
> > of COMMUNICATION.  For COOLEY person's are SENTIMENTALLY 
> GROUNDED  
> > SYMBOLS.
> > Sentiment and imagination are generated in the life of  
> > communication, having
> > no separate existence except in OUR FORMS OF SPEECH (Cooley, 
> 1922)  
> > "The
> > thing that moves us to pride or shame, is not the mere 
> mechanical  
> > reflection
> > of ourselves, but an imputed SENTIMENT, the imagined 
> judgement,  
> > which is
> > quite ESSENTIAL.
> >
> > Jay it seems to me this debate about the role of emotions, 
> which was  
> > debated
> > between Cooley and Mead seems quite current to our 
> continuing  
> > discussion.
> > What is fascinating to me is how talk od "sympathy" and 
> "sentiment"  
> > and
> > "feeling" and "emotion" are not given the same status and 
> validation  
> > in many
> > of the social science dicourses that they seem to merit.
> > Feminist discourse is another discursive tradition that has a 
> lot to  
> > say
> > about this topic.
> >
> > Leaves me wondering and curious.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jay Lemke" <jaylemke@umich.edu>
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >
> >
> > So, would we begin with the simple contradiction: emotion is 
> society's> principal support? (vs. "nemesis"?)
> >
> > Reasonable on the grounds that "fellow-feeling" or primary 
> sociality,> our empathic bond to our fellow humans, is what 
> counters any notion
> > that the "state of nature" is ONLY "red in tooth, claw, and 
> nail". We
> > do not begin from a war of all against all, but from family 
> ties, and
> > cultural extensions of kinship feelings to notional kin, and 
> loyalties> and identifications with larger groups and with 
> lineages, clans,
> > moieties, age cohorts, initiation cohorts, totemic subgroups, 
> etc.  
> > etc.
> >
> > Without fellow-feeling, no society. Can the same be said as
> > convincingly of reason? Do we imagine that social systems cohere
> > because we rationally recognize our advantage from them? And 
> that that
> > bond is strong enough to stand the test of conflict? That we would
> > sacrifice our lives to defend others solely out of rational
> > calculation? I doubt it. It seems clearly that sociality is 
> rooted in
> > feeling.
> >
> > Or, rather, in the unity and functional integration of kinds of
> > meaning making (e.g. to determine culturally who is in-group 
> and who
> > is out-group) and kinds of feeling (loyalty, love, and alas their
> > opposites).
> >
> > Emotions may be the nemesis of abstract and arbitrary, perhaps even
> > ideologically suspect, social ties. The "rational" grounds of the
> > capitalist nation-state, and its efforts to recruit loyalty
> > emotionally (songs, flags, rhetoric) seem rather easily 
> interrupted by
> > the emotions of anger and resentment and the feeling of righteous
> > wrath against the oppressor, not just of myself, but also of others,
> > that leads to revolution, or at least to throwing a brick or two.
> >
> > So I hope I am being a bit dialectical here in seeing even the sense
> > in which emotions ARE the nemesis of society as also and more
> > fundamentally being the same sense in which they ground the very
> > possibility of society.
> >
> > JAY.
> >
> >
> > Jay Lemke
> > Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> > Educational Studies
> > University of Michigan
> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >
> > Visiting Scholar
> > Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> > University of California -- San Diego
> > La Jolla, CA
> > USA 92093
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2009, at 7:48 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> >
> >> Hello All:
> >>
> >> I would like to point out that when I suggested that emotion
> >> appeared to be
> >> societies nemesis I did not bring in the dialectic but rather used
> >> the word
> >> dichotomy.  Dichotomy does bring out the notion of 
> either/or where
> >> dialectic is rather a wholeness a both sidedness within the same
> >> 'gestalt' (for lack of a better word).  I believe in the 
> dialectic  
> >> and
> >> would like someone to stage this aspect of emotions in the 
> form of  
> >> the
> >> dialectic.  Does this make sense?
> >>
> >> much thanks and turkey gravy
> >> eric
> >>
> >>     To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, 
> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>     cc:
> >>     bcc:
> >>     Subject:    RE: [xmca] 
> about emotions
> >> Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> >> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> 11/28/2009 10:28 AM GMT
> >> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, 
> Activity"        <font
> >> size=-1></font>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So, now, compare the two contexts
> >>
> >> 1926 - Fighting against general dualistic view in old psycholoy
> >>
> >> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> >> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> >> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> >> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> >> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> >> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> >> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> >> every point nourished and permeated by these
> >> interdependences. NOT FOR A SINGLE MILLISECOND,
> >> PSYCHOLOGY TO MEASURE THE EXACT DURATION OF MENTAL
> >> PROCESSES, IS IT ISOLATED AND SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE
> >> WORLD ANDA THE OTHER ORGANIC PROCESS. Who claimsand studies
> >> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> >> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> >> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >>
> >>
> >> 1931-33 - Fighting against specific dualistic view in theory of
> >> emotions
> >> Chabrier completely justifiably refers to the fact that a 
> feeling of
> >> hunger, usually
> >> considered in the group of lower bodily feelings in civilized 
> man, is
> >> already a
> >> fine feeling from the point of view of the nomenclature of James,
> >> that the
> >> simple
> >> need of food can acquire a religious sense when it leads to the
> >> appearance
> >> of a
> >> symbolic rite of mystical communication between man and God. And
> >> conversely,
> >> a religious feeling, usually considered as a purely spiritual
> >> emotion, in
> >> pious cannibals
> >> bringing human sacrifices to the gods, can scarcely he 
> referred to  
> >> the
> >> group
> >> of higher emotions. Consequently, THERE IS NO EMOTION THAT BY 
> NATURE>> WOULD
> >> BE
> >> INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY AND NOT CONNECTED WITH IT.Thank you 
> for the
> >> English
> >> version. Where in English is "Psychology to measure" in 
> Russian is
> >> "Psychologists"
> >> The Spanish is more correct - I don´t know about other mistakes.
> >>
> >> Achilles.
> >>
> >>> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
> >>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
> >>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:36 +0000
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course this view is a mistake, because this view do not 
> consider>>> what he said after, that is that mind is not 
> separate from organism.
> >>> He not only denying old psychology, he is making an affirmation
> >>> againt
> >>> it. The same affirmation that I quote.
> >>>
> >>> Achilles.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:53:47 +1100
> >>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>
> >>>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> >>>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> >>>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> >>>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> >>>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> >>>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> >>>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> >>>> every point nourished and permeated by these
> >>>> interdependences. Not for a single millisecond, used by
> >>>> psychology to measure the exact duration of mental
> >>>> processes, is it isolated and separated from the rest of the
> >>>> world and the other organic processes. Who claimsand studies
> >>>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> >>>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> >>>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >>>>
> >>>> LSW CW v. 3, p. 152-3.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reading this together with the preceding 3 sections, I take
> >>>> it that "traditional psychology" means introspective, or
> >>>> subjective psychology, and the view that introspection
> >>>> provides direct access to a distinct part of reality (soul,
> >>>> spiritual beings, something nonphysical, above matter).
> >>>> Vygotsky is saying that this view is mistaken.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>> Please Andy,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please if you are with the text about Thonrdike,
> >>>>> The passage is in the part 2, paragraph 4th -
> >>>>> The paragraph immediately above has te following
> >>>>> reference (N. N. Langue, 1914, p 42)...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The psyche and any its delicates and complex mechanisms, is
> >>>>> inserted
> >>>>> in the general system of the human behavior, each one of its
> >> manifestations
> >>>>> is totally impregnated by this mutual relation. Do not appears
> >> isolated nor
> >>>>> separated from the rest of the world an from the process of
> >>>>> organism
> >> even
> >>>>> a millesinum of a second, that is the time that psychologists
> >> calculate to
> >>>>> the psychic process. Who sustains in their investigations the
> >> contrary, will
> >>>>> be studying an unreal configuration of the own intelligence,
> >>>>> chimeras
> >> in
> >>>>> the place of facts, terminologicals constructs in the 
> places of
> >>>>> real
> >> authentic
> >>>>> facts"....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He is discussing methodological problem of definition of the
> >> psyche... Just
> >>>>> trying to posing about what king of things psychologist 
> want make
> >>>>> his
> >> questions.
> >>>>> And stating that a psyche without orgnism is not a real 
> thing  
> >>>>> about
> >> what
> >>>>> make questions... because if you ask for something that doesn't
> >> exist, you
> >>>>> can find answers that can not exist too. Its what I understand
> >>>>> about
> >> that
> >>>>> formulation. And I guess that in "The teatching about 
> emotions"  
> >>>>> the
> >> problem
> >>>>> is methodological too. Let me say, about the own 
> conditions to you
> >> make a
> >>>>> good question related to emotions, at that time, and even 
> in our
> >> time, I can
> >>>>> conclude...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will see a manner to type the Russian, for any adictional
> >>>>> checking
> >> about this
> >>>>> quoting. Because there are two problems:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) How it was translated from Russian to Spanish.
> >>>>> 2) How, of course, I translate from Spanish to English... (this
> >>>>> very
> >> worse, of course)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you Andy. Again.
> >>>>> Sorry about my persistence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:57:19 +1100
> >>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Achilles, I am looking at the English version in LSV CW v.3.
> >>>>>> I can't find the passage you quote, but I see on p. 155 that
> >>>>>> Vygotsky puts "other somatic reactions that form the basis
> >>>>>> of emotion" in the same category as "the first component of
> >>>>>> an organism's perception of this environmental influence."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Personally, I don't think emotion has anything to do with
> >>>>>> instinct or higher vs lower mental functions. We perceive
> >>>>>> the reaction of our body and that affects our thinking and
> >>>>>> our whole process of perception, just like our vision does.
> >>>>>> Vygotsky compares it to inner speech actually. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky was trying to solve the problem of
> >>>>>>> dualism in theory of emotions. He worked with the principle
> >>>>>>> of "psychophysical unit" - the "main principle of Soviet
> >> psychology"
> >>>>>>> in the words from Rubinshtein. The difference between
> >>>>>>> the cognitive and the instinctive is not because the cognitive
> >>>>>>> have not physiological conditions, but the complexity of that
> >>>>>>> conditions and it mediated character... Vygotsky said that
> >>>>>>> "the psyche do not appears isolated from the world or from
> >>>>>>> the process form organism neither for a 0,001 second" 
> (1926/1991>>>>>>> - Prólogo a la versión russa del libro de E. 
> Thorndike>>>>>>> 'Principios
> >>>>>>> de enseñanza basados a la psicología - this is the 
> Volume I
> >>>>>>> of the Works in Russian and Spanish, I don't remeber the 
> number>>>>>>> in English, because they do not follow the Russian 
> numeration).>>>>>>> You can see that psyche are not isolated 
> from the organism and
> >>>>>>> not isolated from the world. In fact human beens are 
> constituted>>>>>>> by the same substance that the world, we are 
> not an "Impire
> >>>>>>> inside
> >>>>>>> the impire" - but to be the same substance do not means 
> that we
> >>>>>>> are in the same way... the same "mode" - I Spinoza´s words.
> >>>>>>> Vygotsky fight against a dualistic approach to emotions. 
> And to
> >>>>>>> him James is an "involuntary disciple of Descartes" 
> because his
> >>>>>>> especial emphasis in cultural feelings as spiritual 
> process.  
> >>>>>>> Much
> >>>>>>> common even today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I only don't uderstand why you say that there is a 
> problem that
> >>>>>>> I am trying to solve. If cognition have not material 
> support  
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> kind of substance is cognition? This is not a problem, the
> >>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>> is how to understand ideological, historical, conscious,
> >>>>>>> cultural,
> >>>>>>> constitution of human emotions in his/her whole personality
> >>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>> repeat a dualistic approach. I understand this problem 
> is not
> >>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>> mine... this is a problem posed by Vygotsky himself. And 
> I only
> >>>>>>> agree that is good question... I don't if Damasio 
> already answer
> >> that.
> >>>>>>> Can you tell me who did?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:10 +1100
> >>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But you still need a distinction between a physiological
> >>>>>>>> reaction and a cognitive disposition, don't you, Achilles?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What is the specific problem you are trying to solve?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Jay,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Something near to this distinction between feelings and
> >>>>>>>>> emotions
> >>>>>>>>> was posed by William James too, according Vygotsky, 
> but James
> >>>>>>>>> saw this distinction in terms that these social 
> dimension of
> >> affective
> >>>>>>>>> world, the higher feelings, have almost nothing 
> related to
> >> biological,
> >>>>>>>>> physiological, material, body, conditions. And Vygotsky
> >> criticizes
> >>>>>>>>> this like a way of dualistic thinking - this dualism 
> can be
> >> understood
> >>>>>>>>> as based in ideological motivations too: "the human is 
> not an
> >> animal,
> >>>>>>>>> nor a material been, but a divine been, in his 
> higher,  
> >>>>>>>>> superior
> >> feelings..."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A distinction between feelings and emotions is present in
> >>>>>>>>> Damasio
> >> too
> >>>>>>>>> in neurofunctional terms... But Vygotsky proposed the
> >>>>>>>>> question of
> >>>>>>>>> a systemic inter-relationship in that the lower can turns
> >>>>>>>>> higher,
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> vice versa... I don't know what we can thing about 
> this... In
> >> this
> >>>>>>>>> case, distinction between feelings and emotions are 
> useful,  
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >> if
> >>>>>>>>> we want to understand the entire human been, his/her whole
> >> personality,
> >>>>>>>>> the integration and inter-functional relations 
> between  
> >>>>>>>>> feelings
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> emotions turns relevant too, In my point of view.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes.
> >>>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
> >>>>>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:26 -0800
> >>>>>>>>>> CC:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am certainly one of those people interested in 
> emotion, or
> >> feeling,
> >>>>>>>>>> or affect, or whatever we choose to make of the phenomenon.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The topic seems to have historically accumulated a 
> lot of
> >> ideological
> >>>>>>>>>> baggage. And while its expression may be more sophisticated
> >> today than
> >>>>>>>>>> in times past, there doesn't seem to be that much 
> less of it
> >>>>>>>>>> (as
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>> example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy review
> >>>>>>>>>> noted
> >> by
> >>>>>>>>>> someone earlier).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Emotion tends to be seen as bad in our philosophical
> >>>>>>>>>> tradition.
> >> As the
> >>>>>>>>>> enemy of reason, the motor of self-deception, etc. It 
> links  
> >>>>>>>>>> us
> >> to the
> >>>>>>>>>> animals, to our "baser" nature, etc. A bit of this in the
> >>>>>>>>>> pagan
> >>>>>>>>>> tradition, a lot of it in christian asceticism, and 
> tons of  
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment rationalism and its successors.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Emotions are also associated with the unreliable 
> feminine  
> >>>>>>>>>> vs..
> >> the cool
> >>>>>>>>>> and collected masculine, with the passions of the mob 
> vs. the
> >>>>>>>>>> thoughtful elite, with peasants, workers, and 
> children, and
> >> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>> much every social category whose oppression needs some
> >> legitimation.
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed one of the near universal legitimations of elite
> >>>>>>>>>> power is
> >> "we
> >>>>>>>>>> know what's good for you", not just because of what 
> we know,
> >>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>> because you can't be trusted to see your own best interests
> >> through
> >>>>>>>>>> the haze of your emotions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Useful as this is to elite interests, it combines 
> further  
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>> cult of individualism to make emotions a purely individual,
> >> mental,
> >>>>>>>>>> subjective matter. Non-material, non-social, non-
> cultural,  
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> universal (the easier to apply the stigma of 
> emotionality to
> >> non-
> >>>>>>>>>> European cultures). It is rather hard to crawl out of 
> this  
> >>>>>>>>>> pit
> >> of mud.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As I've been trying to do for the last year or two. There
> >>>>>>>>>> would
> >> be too
> >>>>>>>>>> much to say for a short post on this list, but here 
> are a few
> >> basic
> >>>>>>>>>> suggestions:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Feeling is a broad enough category to get back to the
> >> phenomenology of
> >>>>>>>>>> affect/emotion, whereas "emotion" is too narrowly defined
> >>>>>>>>>> within
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>> tradition of animal-like and universal.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There are a LOT of different feelings, and that is more
> >> important than
> >>>>>>>>>> efforts to identify some small number of basic emotions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Many feelings are associated with evaluative 
> judgments and
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >> may be
> >>>>>>>>>> a key link to re-unify affective and cognitive.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Feelings do differ significantly across cultures, and 
> are  
> >>>>>>>>>> part
> >> of a
> >>>>>>>>>> larger system of meanings-and-feelings specific to a
> >>>>>>>>>> community.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You can't make meanings across any longer term 
> process of
> >> reasoning
> >>>>>>>>>> without feelings and evaluative judgments.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is likely that feelings have histories, both in cultures
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>>> individuals.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Feelings are often reliable guides to survival, to adaptive
> >> action,
> >>>>>>>>>> and to finding ways to meet our needs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Feelings are just as situated and distributed as are
> >>>>>>>>>> cognitions.
> >> And
> >>>>>>>>>> just as active and actively made and produced.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In short -- pretty much everything in our dominant 
> tradition>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> emotions and feelings is exactly wrong -- and for the worst
> >> possible
> >>>>>>>>>> ideological-political reasons, I believe.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> JAY.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jay Lemke
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> >>>>>>>>>> Educational Studies
> >>>>>>>>>> University of Michigan
> >>>>>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>>>>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Visiting Scholar
> >>>>>>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> >>>>>>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
> >>>>>>>>>> La Jolla, CA
> >>>>>>>>>> USA 92093
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With so much interest in achieving an integrated
> >>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> emotion,
> >>>>>>>>>>> cognition, and development, Achilles, your focus on this
> >>>>>>>>>>> topic
> >> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> helpful
> >>>>>>>>>>> reminder of its continued importance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Seems like one of those many areas in psychological 
> research>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>> we cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>> keep from murdering to dissect.
> >>>>>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 
> _________________________________________________________________>>>>>>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e
> >>>>>>>>> muito
> >> mais. Conheça!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 
> _________________________________________________________________>>>>>>> Agora a pressa é amiga da perfeição. Chegou o Windows 7.  
> >>>>>>> Conheça!
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> > 
> http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539_______________________________________________>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 
> _________________________________________________________________>>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> >> mais. Conheça!
> >>>>>
> >>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> >>> mais..
> >> Conheça!
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Você já ama o Messenger? Conheça ainda mais sobre ele no Novo 
> site de
> >> Windows Live.
> >>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>> 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