[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL

[Andy Blunden]

Which only means that Vygotsky did not attempt to create a Social 
Theory, only a Psychology.
But in creating a General Psychology, he left us a paradigm for the 
human sciences. ANL attempted to carry that through to create a 
Psychology which was equally a Social Theory, but in my view he was 
largely unsuccessful. But to have created a Psychology rather than a 
Theory of Everything does not make one an Idealist, just a specialist.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     No, LSV is quite right, Huw. You and I can go through the same
>     sequence of events, but if, for example, the events really get
>     under your skin, and perhaps due to past experiences, or to some
>     sensitivity or another, it really shakes you up and causes you to
>     dwell on the experience, work over it and reflect on it, then most
>     likely you will make a personal development. If perhaps on other
>     hand, maybe because of some prejudice I had, the same experience
>     just went like water off a duck's back for me and I didn't care
>     tuppence about the experience and just simply turned to next
>     business, then I will not make a development.
>
>
> But does ANL refute this?  He is simply asserting that experience is 
> derivative to activity, not that meaningful things don't follow from 
> experience.
>  
>
>     It is *only* the "subjective" side of experience and the
>     *reflection* of "objective" relations/events that forms personal
>     development. Only. And that is LSV's point.
>
>
> And it is ANL's point that these experiences arise in activity.  Note 
> that LSV doesn't provide a medium for their formation, he simply 
> refers to them as forms.
>  
>
>
>     And can I just echo Martin and David's observation that
>     consciousness before language was well-known and foundational to
>     Vygotsky, and consequently consciousness other than language. And
>     Julian and Mike's observation that "the ideal" lies ultimately in
>     social practices, the doing-side of which give content and meaning
>     to speech which speech would lack outside its being part of those
>     activities. Vygotsky knew this, and this was why he introduced a
>     range artifacts derived from the wider culture, as mediating
>     elements, into social interaction.
>
>     So ANL is going along with the still widely held prejudice that
>     Vygotsky was *just* all about language. Not true.
>
>
> I would read these in terms of the opening paragraph ("propositions 
> that have been connected to a unified system, but are far from 
> equivalent") and then there is the politics of survival.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>  
>
>
>     Andy
>     https://www.academia.edu/7511935/The_Problem_of_the_Environment._A_Defence_of_Vygotsky
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>         ....
>
>         Hence ANL is right to impute (metaphysical) idealistic
>         tendencies to this
>         paper of LSV's.  Because to base the development on subjective
>         emotional
>         experience is idealistic.  ANL, conversely, refers to the
>         relativity of
>         experience upon activity.  It does not help that LSV refers to
>         his norms as
>         ideals and that all of the examples he provides are about speech
>         communication.  It is ripe for misinterpretation as an
>         idealistic paper.
>
>         Best,
>         Huw
>
>          
>
>
>