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

[Andy Blunden]

He? ANL or LSV.
LSV states his aim to create a General Psychology in "Historical Crisis"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm

ANL, I think the aim of a creating general theory of human activity was 
always meant to be interdisciplinary. Although for very good reasons it 
has only ever been taken up by Psychologists, I think it is very 
obviously interdisciplinary.

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


Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>
> Does he state this aim somewhere?  That might be interesting to look at.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>
>         On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto: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/>
>             <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
>
>                  
>
>
>
>