[Marxism-Thaxis] FW: Usuarios de Telefonía Cel ular...URGENTE !!!!!!
--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Penelope Ferreras pennyb...@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Penelope Ferreras pennyb...@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Usuarios de Telefonía Celular...URGENTE !!
To: amado romero chichilat...@gmail.com, amaurysm...@hotmail.com,
amor_...@hotmail.com, arlennytavera...@hotmail.com, ballista nc
ballist...@yahoo.com, bianca valces bianca...@hotmail.com, dianelva gil
jhonel...@hotmail.com, Emerson Quezada piconaut...@msn.com, jenny
tejeda jros...@hotmail.com, j.miguelmarq...@hotmail.com,
johanenmanue...@hotmail.com, jonito malena johnnymal...@hotmail.com, juana
encarnacion juana_encarnacionre...@hotmail.com, Kya Sang
kya_s...@hotmail.com, odalis mateo odalisma...@yahoo.com, milagro
mydarly...@hotmail.com, pedro medina mr_mac...@hotmail.com, Sonia De La
Cruz soniac...@gmail.com, the_tierna...@hotmail.com, vitic...@hotmail.com,
sugei L. g...@hotmail.com
Date: Thursday, November 26, 2009, 7:18 AM
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:54:22 -0800
From: cuest...@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: Usuarios de Telefonía Celular...URGENTE !!
To: j...@yahoo.com
#yiv1597730910 .ExternalClass DIV
{}
URGENTSIMO !!! NOS ESTAN MATANDO, IGUALITO
QUE HICIERON CON NUESTROS INDIOS ,...HACE 500 ANOS
!!!
Gracela Virgnia
#yiv1597730910 .ExternalClass #ecxyiv411762975 .ecxExternalClass
.ecxecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1597730910 .ExternalClass #ecxyiv411762975 .ecxExternalClass
body.ecxecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
DOMINICANO, UNETE A LA LUCHA
IMPORTANTE - UNION:
Usuarios de Telefonía Celular de República Dominicana con ORANGE, VIVA, TRICOM
y CLARO, dejemos de darles de comer por un tiempo, sin trabajo y que se den
cuenta de que si esto sigue así, nosotros somos los importantes. Pon tu granito
de arena y lo conseguiremos.
LAS EMPRESAS DE TELEFONÍA CELULAR ESTÁN ABUSANDO Y NOS ESTÁN ROBANDO.
!!!POR FAVOR PRESTA ATENCIÓN A LA EXPLICACIÓN.
En USA una compañía de celulares ofrece a sus clientes 2,000 minutos libres
(SI, DOS MIL, LEISTE BIEN) por solo US$ 52.20 (@ US$0.026 el min).
¿¿¿Quién gasta 2,000 minutos en un mes??? Usuarios comunes, seguro que no.
Si alguien gastara 2,000 minutos en nuestro país seguro pagaría alrededor de
6,000.00 a 7,000.00 pesos dominicanos, lo cual es muy superior a los U$S 52.20
(RD$1,900.00) que se pagan en USA (@ RD$0.94 el minuto).
¿¿¿CÓMO LLEGARON LOS NORTEAMERICANOS A ESTE BENEFICIO??? Mediante la UNIDAD.
Sí, la unidad de la comunidad; sin hacer huelgas, ni rompiendo, ni quemando
llantas, ni matando a nadie. Solo de una manera:
NO USANDO EL TELÉFONO durante varios días, las empresas se vieron obligadas a
BAJAR LAS TARIFAS O QUEBRAR.
PONGÁMONOS LAS PILAS NOSOTROS PARA DEFENDERNOS...
*Datos: En 1999 en Argentina los ciudadanos obligaron a TELECOM y MOVISTAR a
poner una tarifa reducida a INTERNET por medio de DESCOLGAR los teléfonos
durante 15 minutos.
En USA actualmente lograron que las compañías proveedoras de Internet
absorbieran el costo de las llamadas, como comunicarse a un 0800 en vez de a un
0610.*
¿¿¿Por qué nosotros no lo intentamos con los servicios de celulares
Un paro de los usuarios no les hará quebrar, pero si las obligará a pensar en
bajar de precio los servicios que prestan.
*LA PROPUESTA**:
**Si estás de acuerdo, envía este e-mail a todos aquellos que conozca para que
los días 28, 29 y 30 de NOVIEMBRE DEL PRESENTE 2009todos tengamos el celular
apagado. Y si lo necesitan por cualquier razón, eviten las llamadas que puedan.
Usuarios y clientes convocamos a un paro nacional por 72 horas.
Porque somos los que mantienen el sistema, apagamos los Teléfonos celulares los
días de fin de mes de NOVIEMBRE.
ES LA ÚNICA FORMA EN QUE PODREMOS EXPLICARLES A: CLARO, TRICOM. VIVA y ORANGE,
QUE NO SOMOS IGNORANTES NI VAMOS A SEGUIR PERMITIÉNDOLES QUE NOS METAN LA MANO
EN EL BOLSILLO. ENTRE TODOS LOS OBLIGAREMOS A QUE BAJEN LAS TARIFAS, Y MEJOREN
EL SERVICIO QUE ES TAN PESIMO.
SI NO NOS DEFENDEMOS NOSOTROS, NADIE MÁS LO VA A HACER. YA LO HEMOS VISTO!
APAGUEN SUS CELULARES EL MAYOR TIEMPO POSIBLE LOS DÍAS 28, 29 Y 30 DE noviembre
DEL PRESENTE AÑO.
¡¡¡FECHA HISTORICA!!!
Reenvialo por favor si estás de acuerdo.
¿Cansado de borrar spam de tu bandea de entrada? ¡Gana tiempo con el nuevo
filtro anti spam de Hotmail!
¡Revisa de un vistazo si tienes correos nuevos! Ingresa a tu Hotmail desde tu
Messenger. ¡Pruébalo ahora!
Guarda y comparte fotos, archivos, documentos y más. ¡Con Windows Live tienes
25 GB gratis! Pruébalo ahora.
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail
you.
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Soviet Cultural Psychology
http://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/works/levitin/not-born-personality.pdf This work gives a lot of information on many of the other Soviet 'psychologists' as well as Vygotsky. It's the best profile of Elkonen I've ever found, albeit very short. CJ http://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/works/levitin/not-born-personality.pdf Interesting excerpt: In the 1920s, Soviet psychologists quickly destroyed the traditional, subjective-empirical psychology which prevailed in Russian science before the Revolution. And the same years saw impatient attempts to replace it with a new Marxist, materialist and objective psychology. Moreover, psychologists were strongly influenced by Pavlov’s physiology of higher neural activity, which was seen as a model of scientific objectivity and materialism. Its successes were enough to impress any scientist in the early 1920s. Soviet psychologists in those years were also greatly influenced by the idea of explaining psychological processes in straightforward sociological terms. Considering that the Soviet humanities had not yet interpreted and assimilated Marxist philosophy with sufficient depth, these ideas were often regarded as authentically “Marxist.” Finally, of the psychological schools proper, the greatest influence on Soviet psychology was exerted by behaviourism, which was attractive because it was seen as an objective, materialistic trend. The influence of these and a series of other circumstances produced a very complex picture in psychology. Some defined psychology as “the science of behaviour” (Borovsky, Blonsky), others as “the science of reflexes” (Bekhterev), others thought that psychology was “the science of reactions” (Kornilov), and still others described it as a science “of the systems of social reflexes” (Raisner). Despite the differences in these formulations their general thrust was undoubtedly directed against the notion of psychology as “the science of the soul.” Making psychology objective was the goal of all the trends. To achieve this aim, psychologists were prepared to forego the study of any subjective elements in the human psyche. The psyche was reduced either to a system of behavioural reactions or to a combination of conditional reflexes or a set of what a modern scholar would describe as “social positions” or “social roles.” LEV VYGOTSKY. THE MOZART OF PSYCHOLOGY 37 What did that mean in relation to the problems of consciousness? Many prominent Soviet psychologists (Blonsky and Borovsky) practically ignored this problem. They believed it was beyond the scope of scientific psychology, as it was incapable of being studied by objective methods. Another group of psychologists headed by Kornilov, on the contrary, considered consciousness to be the key object of psychology. And some few psychologists led by Chelpanov still adhered to the traditional psychology of consciousness. It would seem that the above three positions exhaust every possible attitude to the problem of consciousness, but Vygotsky challenged all of them at once. He broke through the presuppositions to which the Soviet psychologists of those years had confined themselves without being aware of it. This arose from a premise which was tacitly and unconsciously accepted by all: consciousness can only be studied as it was studied by subjective empirical psychology. Vygotsky managed to escape this trap because he approached the problem of consciousness not from a psychological but from a methodological angle. To get a genuine opportunity to study the essence – genesis, structure, determinants – of consciousness, he argued, one must adopt a methodological position whereby consciousness becomes the object of study per se. That, in turn, makes it necessary to work out a more general principle of explanation. One must look for a layer of reality of which consciousness is itself the function. If consciousness could serve as a principle of explanation – and that was precisely the case in traditional psychology, which described consciousness as “the common master of psychic functions,” “the stage on which the psyche unfolds” – any study of its essence would be automatically impossible, and only a description of the individual phenomena pertaining to it would be possible. To give consciousness a different methodological status (I am deliberately using the terms of the 1960s and 1970s because this modernisation helps express Vygotsky’s idea for which there was no adequate terminology in his time) one had to identify the layer of reality that determined it. And Vygotsky accomplished that by representing consciousness as an element in the structure of man’s labour activity. The idea that consciousness is determined by labour activity led Vygotsky to the idea of the “psychological tools” created artificially by mankind which represented an element of culture. Initially they were directed “outward,” toward the partner, but then they turned “inward upon oneself” to become the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Soviet Cultural Psychology
And more on the physiologists--Vvedensky, Bekhterev and Pavlov, including excerpts from Vygotsky's take on them (which brings me to the conclusion that Vygotsky actually agrees some with Husserl on the 'crisis'). I think Pavlov had the largest impact on American behaviourists (and remember it was the Americans who helped to get the Russians going on behaviourism in the first place) probably because of a couple very good translations and the 'generalizability' of his methods to experimentation in the US. Bekhterev appears to be the more expansive thinker. I don't know much about Vvedensky at all. V, B and P were all physiologists first, but Vygotsky was a 'semiotician'. CJ Bekhterev http://books.google.com/books?id=IqVeqasmsSACdq=reflexology+soviet+unionsource=gbs_navlinks_s http://books.google.com/books?id=IqVeqasmsSACprintsec=frontcoversource=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepageq=f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=IqVeqasmsSACpg=PA45dq=reflexology+soviet+unionsource=gbs_toc_rcad=8#v=onepageq=reflexology%20soviet%20unionf=false http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Reflexology-Complete-V-M-Bekhterev/dp/0765800098 Product Description Vladimir Mikhailovitch Bekhterev was a pioneering Russian neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychologist. A highly esteemed rival of Ivan Pavlov, his achievements in the areas of personality, clinical psychology, and political and social psychology were recognized and acclaimed throughout the world. Publication of the complete text of Collective Reflexology brings to the English-speaking world this brilliant scientist's final theoretical statements on how reflexological principles, which he had been developing over a quarter century, can be extended far beyond analysis of the individual personality. Bekhterev's work grows out of his interest in group psychology and suggestion. This concept of the reflex is much broader than Pavlov's. It is applicable to every variety of life. Bekhterev compared his own analyses to those of other European thinkers such as Comte, LeBon, and Sorokin. Such analyses strained against the official Marxist-Leninist doctrines of the era. Bekhterev died in 1927, allegedly of poisoning by Stalin's henchman. As with many scientists during the Soviet era, his legacy was suppressed. In the normal course of events his name would have been as well known as that of Freud, Pavlov or, more lately, B.F. Skinner. This first publication of Bekhterev's great work in English fills a void in the fields of psychology, sociology, and the history of science. About the Author V.M. Bekhterev was director of the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg and founded there its Psychoneurological Institute. Among his many books are Suggestion: Its Role in Social Life (available from Transaction) and The Subject Matter and Goals of Social Psychology. Lloyd H. Strickland is professor of psychology at Carleton University. He is the author of numerous journal articles and editor of Directions in Soviet Social Psychology and Soviet and Western Perspectives in Social Psychology. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/crisis/6_dir/6_s4.htm It is this feeling of a system, the sense of a [common] style, the understanding that each particular statement is linked with and dependent upon the central idea of the whole system of which it forms a part, which is absent in the essentially eclectic attempts at combining the parts of two or more systems that are hetero- geneous and diverse in scientific origin and composition. Such are, for instance, the synthesis of behaviorism and Freudian theory in the American literature; Freu- dian theory without Freud in the systems of Adler and Jung; the reflexological Freu- dian theory of Bekhterev and Zalkind; finally, the attempts to combine Freudian theory and Marxism (Luria, 1925; Fridman, 1925). So many examples from the area of the problem of the subconscious alone! In all these attempts the tail of one system is taken and placed against the head of another and the space between them is filled with the trunk of a third. It isn’t that they are incorrect, these mon- strous combinations, they are correct to the last decimal point, but the question they wish to answer is stated incorrectly. We can multiply the number of citizens of Paraguay with the number of kilometers from the earth to the sun and divide the product by the average life span of the elephant and carry out the whole op- eration irreproachably, without a mistake in any number, and nevertheless the final outcome might mislead someone who is interested in the national income of this country. What the eclectics do, is to reply to a question raised by Marxist philosophy with an answer prompted by Freudian metapsychology. In order to show the methodological illegitimacy of such attempts, we will first dwell upon three types of combining incompatible questions and answers, without 2 thinking for one moment that these three types exhaust the variety of such attempts. The first way in which any school
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Soviet Cultural Psychology
If you will recall--I think JF was referring to previous threads as well--that we were discussing some of this under the 'Vienna Circle' threads (which I cite in this post -- scroll down). All this puts me to mind of Wittgenstein's interest in psychology, which was not simply a late development in his thinking. First, he was exposed to much this as part of an educational reform movement in Austria between the wars. Also he had an expressed but critical interest in Gestalt psychology (which you could put simplistically as a psychological spin-off the same lines of inquiry and research that led to the 'Husserlian turn' in philosophy). Now I really must learn more about Stumpf's output in phonetics. I hadn't known about this until this week, which does go to show that although we seem to go around and around here on M-T, going around and around can led to a different direction out. CJ http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/69 Phenomenological factors in Vygotsky’s mature psychology Paul S. Macdonald Murdoch University, Western Australia, pmcdo...@central.murdoch.edu.au This article examines some of the phenomenological features in Lev Vygotsky’s mature psychological theory, especially in Thinking and Speech and The Current Crisis in Psychology. It traces the complex literary and philosophical influences in 1920s Moscow on Vygotsky’s thought, through Gustav Shpet’s seminars on Husserl and the inner form of the word, Chelpanov’s seminars on phenomenology, Bakhtin’s theory of the production of inner speech, and the theoretical insights of the early Gestalt psychologists. It begins with an exposition of two central Husserlian schemas: part-whole theory and the thesis of the naïve standpoint, both of which Vygotsky was clearly familiar with. This is followed by an account of the reception of phenomenology in early Soviet Russia. The article’s central sections are concerned with a careful unpacking and critique of Vygotsky’s employment of Husserlian method and analysis in his later doctrine of the ‘inner plane of speech’, his use of part-whole theory, and his identification of Husserl’s position with an untenable version of idealism. The article closes with the contention that Vygotsky misrepresents the phenomenological analysis of meaning formation and appropriates basic Husserlian conceptual terms in his elaboration of the ‘inner form of the word’; but Vygotsky does so in such a way that he enriches our descriptive access to the individual development of humans’ dynamic use of language. Key Words: cognitive meaning • Edmund Husserl • part-whole theory • phenomenology http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg04571.html http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/husserl2.htm (by the way, I have the book, but am citing an online source for list participants) small excerpt �61. Psychology in the tension between the (objectivistic-philosophical) idea of science and empirical procedure: the incompatibility of the two directions of psychological inquiry (the psychophysical and that of psychology based on inner experience). ALL SCIENTIFIC empirical inquiry has its original legitimacy and also its dignity. But considered by itself, not all such inquiry is science in that most original and indispensable sense whose first name was philosophy, and thus also in the sense of the new establishment of a philosophy or science since the Renaissance. Not all scientific empirical inquiry grew up as a partial function within such a science. Yet only when it does justice to this sense can it truly be called scientific. But we can speak of science as such only where, within the indestructible whole of universal philosophy, a branch of the universal task causes a particular science, unitary in itself, to grow up, in whose particular task, as a branch, the universal task works itself out in an originally vital grounding of the system. Not every empirical inquiry that can be pursued freely by itself is in this sense already a science, no matter how much practical utility it may have, no matter how much confirmed, methodical technique may reign in it. Now this applies to psychology insofar as, historically, in the constant drive to fulfil its determination as a philosophical, i.e., a genuine, science, it remains entangled in obscurities about its legitimate sense, finally succumbs to temptations to develop a rigorously methodical psychophysical - or better, a psychophysicist's empirical inquiry, and then thinks that it has fulfilled its sense as a science because of the confirmed reliability of its methods. By contrast to the specialists' psychology of the present, our concern - the philosopher's concern - is to move this sense as a science to the central point of interest - especially in relation to psychology as the place of decisions for a proper development of a philosophy in general - and to clarify its whole motivation and scope. In this direction of the original aim
