m of care – jan 4 24
VYGOTSKY, PLAY, AND EXPERIENCE
[https://museum.care/events/vygotsky-play-and-experience/]:
Kyrill Potapov will give a short intro to the thought of Vygotsky and we will discuss “On the Problem of the Psychology of the Actor’s Creative Work.“
intro’d to kyrill here: m of care – apr 27 (2023)
then added: me other tool..nonjudgmental expo labeling.. monika on ai
In this short text, Lev Vygotsky explores the relationship between the experience of an actor and an audience, their social context and action we see on stage. The text raises questions about how we, as humans, can share experiences and what it is in an artistic work that elicits an emotional response. David Graeber wondered about the myth of the isolated person who is defined and how people question themselves in similar ways throughout their lives, returning time and again to the question of the myth of the isolated self and the rectification of human nature.
beyond the monastic self et al
[notes/quotes from reading mid page]
notes/quotes from meeting:
kyrill: i’m a researcher in human/computer interaction.. study self reflection/rep.. interested in how people develop interps themselves.. so this piece is rather relevant.. been thinking about all aspects of vygotsky’s work for a while.. preface to essay.. at start of his short life.. began by writing lots of theatre reviews.. didn’t have access to reg ed.. but house was full of books.. was going to uni then revolution happened.. high proportion of street children.. w/o access to ed.. so asking how to get everyone appreciating/accessing what we call culture.. this piece was him returning to these themes.. died of tb at age 37..
k: v looks at diff approaches and synthesizes..
1\ psychotech approach.. tried to find bio correlates.. innates systems related to emotions.. in actor and actor triggers in audience.. fixed.. don’t vary from person to person unless something wrong w you.. ie: iq test; myers briggs; some children suitable to go into acting.. others not..
2/ diderot’s romantic approach – contradiction actor has between inner/outer feeling..
3/ stabislavsky’s approach.. not bio but social.. mirroring society
4/ vygotsky’s approach.. social predates the individual.. sense of individual only comes from already being enculaterated in a particular culture..
v’s conclusion – claims psych of actors are finally ideological.. experience not in brain of individual.. but in wider dynamics of the situation.. ie: jealousy nothing we can feel.. it’s an ideo category.. points at back/forth thing..
perezhivanie: experience/concern is not a mirror or a torch, but a prism..
k: curious about the idea of research/study in v.. this question of .. does emotion transcend individual.. what does it mean when we say.. emotion is beyond individual
k: exactly problem is asking.. who would they be and what is relevang to who they would be.. ie: ptsd? assumes an ideal.. how do we get to that.. and how do we know that’s effective
myth of normal ness.. and doe ness
k: v – that purpose is closer to reality/naturalism.. in stanis.. already have individual will.. v is problematizing both ends of that.. stance on reality shaped by reality.. but both are dynamics.. so can’t say have correct stance.. but perhaps in a purer form..
ahmed: addiction therapist..
k: v: criticizing idea of types/categories.. v is saying categories have a history as well.. categories not pretend.. we do have biology.. but saying more about our relationship to them.. rather than objective.. so redefine what we mean by disability.. a failure of society not the lack in the individual.. what’s the interplay w these bio factors.. ie: schizo.. it is real suffering.. so how do we deal with that
k: thinking that memory draws us back into the monastic self
yeah.. on whales in sea world.. beyond the monastic self.. the confines if not the it is me ness
from writings of renzo novatore: p 57 You should now be made to climb the “electric chair” of rude, lacerbian memory, first of all its inventor, but it would be more hygienic to make you climb the one that the great American pal keeps in his house.
nika: ask avi to talk about last reading group on play.. theatre was the major societal tool in ancient greece and western civ..
avi: 1\ research and graeber phrase on role of soc sci’s.. that political ground is shifting.. and that’s job of soc sci which is based on research.. and ie: who i am is who i’m talking to.. habits of behavior.. play comes into that when trying to not go along with habits of behavior and what i normally constitute myself with.. can only do thru playful activity..
nika: why art is so important.. because can convince others of what is real
________
________
________
_______
notes/quotes from reading – On the Problem of the Psychology of the Actor’s Creative Work – Vygotsky 1932 – [https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1932/actors-creativity.htm]:
There is something basic in this formulation of the question, and when one begins to study attentively its historical development, one is inevitably convinced that, obviously, it is rooted in the very essence of the creative work of the actor as it opens up to direct understanding, which is still wholly guided by a naive amazement before a new psychological phenomenon.
ie: art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as global re\set.. to fittingness (undisturbed ecosystem).. and the need to capture that new psych phenom upon waking.. via first thing every day ness
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech/ai nonjudgmental expo labeling)
The absolute formulation of the question by Diderot is as follows: must the actor experience what he portrays, or is his acting a higher form of “aping,” an imitation of an ideal prototype? The question of the internal states of the actor during a stage play is the central node of the whole problem. Must the actor experience the role or not?
to me.. this is like wilde not-us law and whales in sea world ness
In essence, two things that are very close to each other, but never completely merged, are mixed in Diderot’s paradox. First, Diderot has in mind the most superpersonal, ideal character of the passions that the actor projects from the stage. *These are idealized passions and movements of the soul; they are not natural, live feelings of one actor or another, they are artificial, they are created by the creative force of man and to that extent must be considered as artificial creations, like a novel, a sonata, or a statue. Because of this, they differ in content from corresponding feelings of the actor himself. Diderot says: “A gladiator of ancient times is like a great actor, and a great actor is like an ancient gladiator; they do not die as people die in bed. **They must portray before us a different death so as to please us, and the viewer feels that the bare, unadorned truth of movement would be shallow and contrary to the poetry of the whole” (ibid., p. 581).
*to me.. this is all of us.. and so.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
**maté trump law et al
But if the actor’s perezhivanie also differs from everyday life perezhivaniya by the fact that it comprises a part of an entirely different system, then its explanation must be found in laws of the structure of that system.
yeah.. sea world.. so.. hari rat park law et al
As we have seen, the essence of the problem, which seemed paradoxical to all who wrote about it, consists in the relation of the artificially produced emotion of a role to the real, live, natural emotion of the actor playing the role. We think that solving this problem is possible if we take into account two points that are equally important for its correct interpretation.
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
Psychology teaches that emotions are not an exception different from other manifestations of our mental life. Like all other mental functions, emotions do not remain in the connection in which they are given initially by virtue of the biological organization of the mind. In the process of social life, feelings develop and forma connections disintegrate; emotions appear in new relations with other elements of mental life, new systems develop, new alloys of mental functions and unities of a higher order appear within which special patterns, interdependencies, special forms of connection and movement are dominant.
but.. to me.. to date.. non have been legit free/us.. black science of people/whales law.. so we have no idea what legit free people are like
To study the order and connection of affects is the principal task of scientific psychology because it is not in emotions taken in an isolated form, *but in connections combining emotions with more complex psychological systems that the solution of the paradox of the actor lies. This solution, as might be expected even now, will bring the investigators to a position that has a fundamental significance for all of the psychology of the actor. **The experience of the actor, his emotions, appear not as functions of his personal mental life, but as a phenomenon that has an objective, social sense and significance that serves as a transitional stage from psychology to ideology.
*as long as out of sea world first..
**or rather.. the death of us ness..
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
________
_________
_________
_________
__________
_________
be you. 