[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion

Huw Lloyd huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 16:19:41 PDT 2014 

>
>
> ​Thanks again for taking the trouble to write that out. Perhaps it will be
> generative for people.
> mike​
>
>
I count two fairly obvious (?) logical inconsistencies and one more
"systemic" problem.

1. A profound concern for a materialistically interconnected world obviates
notions of solitary disciplines.

2. Semantic "structure" is not text, or text-like (unless you're being
generous with the term).  Rather, text can evoke and carry semantic
structure.

3. A claimed concern for semantics, but a clear (scholarly) focus on what
the authors said rather than the (logical) veracity of what was said.
Perhaps a linguist/semiotician will step in and clarify that logic is a
fundamental component of semantics as understood in such fields.

I'm curious about the Kharkov-as-deviant thread.  But I suspect this is the
same problem -- i.e. attention to the words and not the deeds.

Regarding the theme "broadening and enlivening" I am offering "tightening
and sharpening".  So it looks like I'm saying the question is wrong, but I
don't know what the problem was ... something to do with conceptual
difficulties being communicated at ISCAR, perhaps?

All the best,
Huw



>
> > David Kellogg
> > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >
> > PS: Holbrook DID get one thing wrong. Stalin did not argue that
> > language was purely ideal and superstructural; that was Marr's
> > position. Stalin, or whoever ghost wrote his articles, argued that
> > language was base, and therefore somehow material, whatever that
> > means. But Stalin was not really interested in ideas; he was just out
> > for Marr's blood.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 October 2014 22:21, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > Hi David--
> > >
> > > The specific example of your comments on originals and adaptations hits
> > on
> > > a point it would be helpful to hear more about:
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >  Back in Sydney, Seth Chaiklin and I found ourselves in a somewhat
> > > similar argument, with Seth in Perelman's chair, and me clinging
> > > rather obstinately to a paleo-Vygotskyan interpretation which actually
> > > rejects "activity" as a unit of analysis for anything but behavior,
> > > and most certainly as a unit of psychological analysis. Seth's
> > > argument was pragmatist: for certain practical applications, we need
> > > new interpretations, including revisionist ones. Mine was an argument
> > > in favor of species diversity: when the revisionist account supplants
> > > the original to such a degree that Vygotsky's original argument is no
> > > longer accessible to people, we need to go back to original texts (and
> > > this is why it is so important to make the original texts at least
> > > recoverable--once they are gone, it is really a whole species of
> > > thinking that has become extinct).
> > >
> > > 1.   Could you guide us to a text you recommend where this
> interpretation
> > > is laid out?
> > > 2. What sort of revision was Seth suggesting and why?
> > >
> > > I have been reading Russian discussions around this issue.
> Clarification
> > > would be helpful.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:37 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> This morning I had the great pleasure of waking up in my own bed and
> > >> listening to Yo-yo Ma, Emanuel Ax and Itzhak Perlman playing this:
> > >>
> > >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkWCOTImOQ
> > >>
> > >> It's the D Major Cello sonata number two by Mendelssohn, played, as
> > >> Yo-yo Ma tells us, on the Davydov (no, that THAT Davydov) Stradivarius
> > >> that was probably used to perform the sonata for the very first time
> > >> in front of Mendelssohn himself. Now, throughout this concert, Ma has
> > >> been something of a stickler for "the original", and Perelman has been
> > >> pulling politely but pointedly towards a more personal interpretation.
> > >>
> > >> So at around 6:45 on the clip, Perelman tells Ma that if Mendelssohn
> > >> himself had heard the sonata played on that very cello, then he,
> > >> Perelman, was sitting in the very seat that Mendelssohn had occupied,
> > >> and that therefore his freer interpretation was really closer to
> > >> Mendelssohn than any attempt to recreate the sonata with period
> > >> instruments. Mercifully, at this point, Ax interupts them and starts
> > >> to play.
> > >>
> > >> Back in Sydney, Seth Chaiklin and I found ourselves in a somewhat
> > >> similar argument, with Seth in Perelman's chair, and me clinging
> > >> rather obstinately to a paleo-Vygotskyan interpretation which actually
> > >> rejects "activity" as a unit of analysis for anything but behavior,
> > >> and most certainly as a unit of psychological analysis. Seth's
> > >> argument was pragmatist: for certain practical applications, we need
> > >> new interpretations, including revisionist ones. Mine was an argument
> > >> in favor of species diversity: when the revisionist account supplants
> > >> the original to such a degree that Vygotsky's original argument is no
> > >> longer accessible to people, we need to go back to original texts (and
> > >> this is why it is so important to make the original texts at least
> > >> recoverable--once they are gone, it is really a whole species of
> > >> thinking that has become extinct).
> > >>
> > >> David Kellogg
> > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> > >>
> > >> PS: Andy, what shocked me about Bonnie Nardi's plenum in Sydney was
> > >> not her use of "society" or "object": actually, I think I would have
> > >> liked it better if she had used those terms a little more imprecisely,
> > >> in their folk meanings. In fact, a little more IMPRECISION might have
> > >> made it even clearer to us the sheer horror of what she was
> > >> contemplating.
> > >>
> > >> For those on the list who missed it, the plenary focused on a world
> > >> without jobs--that is, a world where five-day forty-hour jobs are
> > >> replaced by "micro-work". Nardi admitted that this was a rather
> > >> dystopian state of affairs--but she also showed us what she called the
> > >> "bright side": more leisure, less greenhouse gases, and also human
> > >> identities less narrowly tied to work. As one person in the conference
> > >> pointed out, and Nardi confirmed, it would also mean more time for the
> > >> spiritual side of life.
> > >>
> > >> What was not pointed out was the effect of all this on the "object" of
> > >> "society", using both terms in their folk senses. The working class is
> > >> being ground down into the economic position of short term sex workers
> > >> and atomized into the social position of housewives. Inequality is now
> > >> at levels not seen since 1820. Even a cursory study of history tells
> > >> us that the result of this is not going to be individual spirituality
> > >> but rather more violence. The only "bright side" I can see is if that
> > >> force is organized, social, and directed against social equality
> > >> rather than against fellow members of the working class.
> > >>
> > >> dk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 5 October 2014 13:38, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > >> > I found Kaptelinin's article in MCA invaluable, Mike. Bonnie Nardi I
> > had
> > >> the
> > >> > great pleasure of meeting for the first time at ISCAR, and if she
> has
> > >> > written something on "object" that is very good news.
> > >> > I don't think the problem is intractable, though I don't think one
> > good
> > >> book
> > >> > or one good article is enough. But for example, for a long while I
> > have
> > >> been
> > >> > jumping up and down about how people use the word "perezhivanie"
> > without
> > >> an
> > >> > article (the, a, an some, etc) implying it is some kind of
> "substance"
> > >> > whereas in Russian it is a count noun. While there remains
> outstanding
> > >> > differences about what perezhivanie means, I notice that almost all
> > bar
> > >> one
> > >> > now use it with an article. So, however that happened that is a step
> > >> > forward, and people are aware of the differences in interpretation
> and
> > >> they
> > >> > are being discussed. I think if we talk about "object" for a while,
> > maybe
> > >> > this can be straightened out. I know the task of conceptual
> > consistency
> > >> in
> > >> > our research community seems to be a hopeless task, but I am
> > optimistic.
> > >> >
> > >> > Andy
> > >> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > *Andy Blunden*
> > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > mike cole wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Those certainly seem like lively topics, Andy.
> > >> >> I had in mind specifically topics that are on peoples' minds that
> go
> > U
> > >> >> discussed. I hope that the time spent at ISCAR produces a shower of
> > >> >> interesting ideas. Isn't that the object of such gatherings?
> > (Whatever
> > >> >> object means!).  :-). The Nardi and Kaptelinin chapter on basics of
> > AT
> > >> is
> > >> >> one good source, but it seems the problem is intractable!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Mike
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Saturday, October 4, 2014, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > >> >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     I don't know, but it's hardly surprising if things were a
> little
> > >> >>     slow this last week as a lot of xmca-ers are also iscar-ers and
> > we
> > >> >>     were all chatting like crazy in Sydney at the ISCAR Congress.
> > >> >>     Everyone (and I mean everyone, including every passenger on a
> > >> >>     Sydney suburban train as well) has their iPhones and tablets
> > etc.,
> > >> >>     so they could read/write on xmca, but I guess they were
> > >> >>     oversupplied with correspondents and protagonists.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     My impressions of CHAT research:
> > >> >>     On the positive side: very diverse, and at its best, sharp and
> > >> >>     critical in relation to the dominant political forces, and
> still
> > >> >>     way out in front in understanding the several developmental
> > >> >>     processes which all contribute to our actions (phylogenesis,
> > >> >>     historical genesis, mesogenesis, ontogenesis, microgenesis),
> and
> > >> >>     not focussing on just one. And I have to say it is a great
> > >> >>     community of research, relatively lacking in the
> competitiveness
> > >> >>     and jealousy which infects most research communities.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     On the negative side:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>        * Most CHAT people still have a concept of "society" as some
> > >> >>          homogeneous, abstract entity which introduces problems
> into
> > the
> > >> >>          social situation on which they try to focus, i.e., people
> > lack
> > >> a
> > >> >>          viable social theory or the ability to use theory they
> have
> > to
> > >> >>          analyse the wider social situation in a differentiated
> way.
> > >> >>        * The idea of "unit of analysis" is almost lost to us. Only
> a
> > >> small
> > >> >>          minority know what it means and use the idea in their
> > research.
> > >> >>        * The concept of "object" is at the centre of a lot of
> > confusion;
> > >> >>          few researchers using the concept are clear on what the
> > concept
> > >> >>          is. This is related to an unwillingness to confront and
> > >> >>     attempt to
> > >> >>          resolve the methodological differences (I refer to
> > systematic
> > >> >>          difference, rather than accidental misunderstandings)
> within
> > >> the
> > >> >>          CHAT community; perhaps it's fear of losing the relatively
> > >> civil
> > >> >>          relations between researchers - people prefer to let
> > >> differences
> > >> >>          just fester without openly discussing them. The old Soviet
> > >> >>          approach is gone, but perhaps we have gone too far the
> other
> > >> >>     way. :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     Andy
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >>     *Andy Blunden*
> > >> >>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >> >>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     mike cole wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>         Hi-- I assume you grabbed it from my erroneous response to
> > >> >>         someone who
> > >> >>         wrote backto xmca instead of me.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>         Had dinner with tim ingold yesterday evening. Such an
> > >> >>         interesting and
> > >> >>         unassuming guy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>         Any ideas about how to broaden/enliven the xmca
> discussion??
> > >> >>
> > >> >>         mike
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
> > an
> > >> >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>

More information about the xmca-l mailing list