[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
Martin John Packer
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
Tue Oct 21 17:36:39 PDT 2014
Where's the entry for Plump Materialism?!!!
:)
Martin
On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right. But not beyond the realm of the practical. I could write activity
> <http://wiki.lchc.ucsd.edu/CHAT/Activity> when I meant it that way. But
> mail servers and clients would have to keep the links tidy.
>
> Huw
>
>
>
>
> On 22 October 2014 01:05, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Right Huw. So an infrastructure exists. Building on it and linking it to
>> ongoing discussions might be a challenge.
>> mike
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 October 2014 00:11, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No need for a taxonomy, Huw. We have long batted around the idea of a
>>> "key
>>>> word" list.
>>>> I think the current xmca facilities may make such an undertaking
>>>> achievable.... if there are achievers around ready to achieve it! :-)
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>
>>> For sure. And it has been done in at least one variant. This is mostly
>>> Andy's take on things:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.lchc.ucsd.edu/CHAT
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 October 2014 22:28, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I suppose when the search field is out
>> of
>>>>>> sight it's out of site. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _An idea_: How about a newcomer's page indicating list posting
>>>>>> preferences? Every list is its own culture and list cultures are
>>> tricky
>>>>> to
>>>>>> gauge sometimes for an outsider. I could write a lot about this as
>>> I've
>>>>>> thought about it a lot, but perhaps I shouldn't do that here or
>> now,
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Another idea_: Are there "Famous Conversations" that seem to
>> embody
>>>> the
>>>>>> most meaning of exchange within the community? Ones that are
>>> memorable?
>>>>>> Perhaps even a "Hall of Fame"? That would be grand to read and to
>>>> learn.
>>>>> I
>>>>>> would be willing to help collect that material together alongside
>> an
>>>> list
>>>>>> elder, if that is a worthwhile offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Third idea_: there could be trigger search links for keywords,
>> such
>>> as
>>>>>> "unit of analysis," for example. These could be inserted on the
>>>>> vocabulary
>>>>>> page, which unfortunately I cannot find from the XCMA homepage even
>>>>> though
>>>>>> I know the page exists somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _A last, but fluffy idea_: is it possible to post emoji's here? Or
>> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>> too trendy and unsophisticated? Is anyone groaning just about
>> now...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I would say it wasn't "fluffy" enough, Annalisa. Mental
>>>>> imagery seems to be the preferred currency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=site:lchc.ucsd.edu%2Fmca%2Fmail+%22mental+image%22
>>>>>
>>>>> If you keep a list of terms, questions etc, then there are a number
>> of
>>>> ways
>>>>> these could get used. However, the challenge with a taxonomy here is
>>>> that
>>>>> you won't get unanimity on the big and little pictures, so it helps
>> to
>>>>> bring your theories with you and to challenge them along the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope these are useful offerings!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:37 PM
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Annalisa, Juan Et al
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the home page of Lchc, Lchc at ucsd dot edu, there is a local
>>> Google
>>>>>> search of the site. I just googled Marx unit of analysis and there
>>>> appear
>>>>>> to be a lot of useful entries. Often that is a good place to start
>>> with
>>>>>> most of our topics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reasons I do not understand, people seem to have a hard time
>>>>>> remembering that the archives are so easy to access! Maybe we need
>> a
>>>>> banner
>>>>>> or something as a reminder? Suggestions for greater user
>>> friendliness
>>>>>> welcome always.
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for directing my attention to your paper. I've downloaded
>> it
>>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I apologize to the list if as a newcomer I am contributing to any
>>>>>> tiresome
>>>>>>> redundancy; I am not clear whether there is a way to search the
>>> list
>>>>>>> archives or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of
>>> Martin
>>>>> John
>>>>>>> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:57 AM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Juan, Annalisa,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The relationship between LSV and Marx is certainly something that
>>> we
>>>>> have
>>>>>>> discussed here on xmca. My own contribution includes a paper
>>>>> published a
>>>>>>> few years ago, which I would be happy to send to you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Packer, M. J. (2008). Is Vygotsky relevant? Vygotsky’s Marxist
>>>>>> psychology.
>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(1), 8-31.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Juan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you that one must understand Marxism to understand
>>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>>> clearly. Darwin's theory too. My grasp upon these topics is
>> tenuous
>>>>> and I
>>>>>>> would benefit to know more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my past, it has been difficult to enjoy dispassionate
>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>> about Marxism in my circles without the distractions of how much
>> I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> know about Marxism, or how much Marx didn't know about
>> capitalism;
>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>> position is helpful. Perhaps Marxism is a hot potato still.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly there are claims that even the Soviets did not
>>> understood
>>>>>>> Marxism properly and that that may be why Vygotsky had such a
>> hard
>>>>> time.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> Marxism has been so difficult a topic, why should it be different
>>> for
>>>>> us
>>>>>>> who have come late to the table? We do have the power of
>> hindsight,
>>>> but
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> this helped?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For any thinker's work, it is highly relevant to understand the
>>>>>>> contemporary milieu in which that person worked. That is why I
>> look
>>>> to
>>>>>>> historical context to unlock Vygotsky's work, not just his texts.
>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>> I find a political specter rises from the grave when discussing
>>>> Marxism
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> kills all prospects before understanding can begin. It is
>>>> perplexing. I
>>>>>>> wonder if it is why Vygotsky will remain elusive to us
>>> post-moderns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wish I could read the Castorina & Baquero paper, but I cannot
>>>> read
>>>>>>> Spanish very well. Would it be asking too much of you to list the
>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>> points made in that paper? I would very much be interested!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of
>> Juan
>>>>>> Duarte <
>>>>>>> juanma.duarte@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 AM
>>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net <javascript:;>; eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I´m sorry for couldn´t answer -neither red all the messages-
>>>>>> previously.
>>>>>>>> But what i was reffering was precisely the fact that the "unit
>> of
>>>>>>> analysis"
>>>>>>>> in Vigotsky is not understandable without taking Marx and
>> Engels
>>>>>> method,
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky himself writes, for example, in his manuscript The
>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>> meaning of the chrisis in psychology.
>>>>>>>> There´s is the need of psychology´s own Das Kapital. And the
>>> units
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> analisis in LV are built in a dialectical way. So, it´s -for
>> me,
>>> at
>>>>>>> least-
>>>>>>>> surprising to read so much about the marxist psychologist, and
>>>>>> preciselly
>>>>>>>> about method, and very few comments about the fact he was
>>> marxist.
>>>> To
>>>>>>>> understand the concept of "unit of analysis" is to know, for
>>>> example,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> method of Das Kapital, where Marx takes the value as a cell,
>> unit
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> diverse and opposits, change value and use value, wich cannot
>> be
>>>>>>> separated
>>>>>>>> without loosing the whole. So is the use of Meaning (unit of
>>> though
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> language), for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, that´s my point. And know that there are many that thake
>>> this
>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>> of view. Andy, for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the fruitful interchange.
>>>>>>>> I send you, if anyone is interested, an article about the
>> marxism
>>>> in
>>>>> LV
>>>>>>> (in
>>>>>>>> spanish). Here, in Argentina, Jose Castorina and Ricardo
>> Baquero
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> worked through this line, in a very interesting work.
>>>>>>>> Juan Duarte (Argentina).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2014-10-20 21:08 GMT-03:00 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Returning to Leontyev's critique of Vygotsky, ANL claimed that
>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie, as a manifestation of the whole personality,
>>> cannot
>>>> be
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> determinant of personality, because that would be a logical
>>>> circle.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> seems to me that ANL failed to understand how Vygotsky’s
>>> analysis
>>>> by
>>>>>>> units
>>>>>>>>> allows him to avoid the reductionism into which ANL then
>>> ventures.
>>>>> If
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> complex process is to be explained by something _else_, then
>> its
>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>> is _reduced_ to the analysis of that something else. Analysis
>>> by
>>>>>> units
>>>>>>>>> allows Vygotsky to avoid reductionism because the analysis
>>> begins
>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>> concept of the whole complex process represented in a unit,
>> not
>>>> the
>>>>>>> whole,
>>>>>>>>> but a small fragment of the whole, such that the whole can be
>>> seen
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> made up of very many such fragments only. Absent Vygotsky's
>>> method
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> analysis by units, and Leontyev's Activity Theory is in danger
>>> of
>>>>>>>>> collapsing to a reductionism that actually explains nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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