[Xmca-l] Re: Volkelt's diagram (LSV's HMF Vol 4)

[Huw Lloyd]

Hi David,

I think I can summarise your description of meaning potential as a
performative act (Austen) which can be appreciated in terms of alternative
acts which were not undertaken, i.e. a commonality and variability analysis
of a unit expression for a given domain.

If we are taking activity and orientation into consideration, then it is
sensible to widen the scope of this act to include the orientation and
perhaps look for congruence in the content of the act with the orientation.

With respect to the construction of knowledge with respect to using tools
and manufacturing tools, an appreciation of this meaning potential is
indeed available, although once we are habituated to the use of a tool it
is not so readily consciously available -- it is often most manifest when
we are first becoming habituated to the operations that a tool affords.  It
may be that an appreciation for the design of artefacts facilitates this
appreciation.  The menu system you refer to is a sitting duck in this
regard, although it makes some things easier for some people, it makes
other things much harder.

In my attempt to understand how you are applying this to mind, my response
is the same.  Yes, we can appreciate how having certain knowledge changes
the landscape of capabilities of a student, and we can appreciate how
different variants of this knowledge can induce different capabilities.
This is the essential technical aspect of conceptual development in
developmental psychology.

Best,
Huw

On 14 January 2016 at 05:28, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw:
>
> I'm using meaning potential in a somewhat technical, Hallidayan, sense. For
> Halliday every utterance has both structure and system. Structure we know
> about: it's syntagmatic, in the sense that it is laid out one step at a
> time (in time with speech and in space with writing). It's non-Markovian,
> in the sense that each step has some influence on the next steps and not
> simply on the next step (e.g.if you start a sentence with "the" you are
> going to need noun pretty soon, but not necessarily right away).
>
> For example, if I find myself saying
>
> "The artist David Bowie was not a chameleon; he just hired a lot of
> different poorly paid adjuncts to write his songs"
>
> My argument is laid out one step at a time: "The" and then "artist" and
> then "David" and then "Bowie" and then "was" (not "is", because of his
> death), etc.
>
> System is a little different. First of all, it's paradigmatic, in the sense
> that it can be thought of as  kind of drop-down menu. It's a free choice,
> in the sense that although context will favor certain "canonical" choices
> over others, I can create contexts (and that is what writers of verbal art
> do). Each choice overlaps with a finite (often only two or three) number of
> choices not chosen. In this way "system" combines free will with
> cultural-historical determination.
>
> For example, if I find myself saying "The artist David Bowie" when I get to
> the noun "artist" I could say "singer" or even "celebrity" but the choice
> is not infinite, particularly if I look at probability and not just
> possibility. Even with proper nouns, in place of "Bowie" I could say
> "Kellogg" or even "Cameron" but the number of choices is distinctly
> limited. I could have said "is", but Bowie's death makes "was" more
> canonical; by choosing "not", I am choosing from only two choices (because
> an indicative clause can be either positive or negative in polarity but not
> both and not anything else) and yet by choosing the negative I am probably
> saying something that goes against 99% of what will be said about Bowie in
> the days to come.
>
> This set of many small choices (some of which, like polarity, are highly
> skewed in probability) is not only true at the level of words, it is also
> true at the level of wording: I can choose to make a major or minor clause;
> if major, I can choose to make an imperative or an indicative; if
> indicative, I can go declarative or interrogative, etc. Each utterance
> represents a kind of a path through an indefinite number of systems, each
> of which is a kind of menu providing a finite number of choices, and this
> is what makes language both infinitely complex and in practice easy to use.
>
> There are three important consequences of this somewhat technical use of
> "meaning potential". First of all, the problem of grammar can be seen as a
> problem of volitional choice, and what needs to be explained in language
> development is the same thing that needs to be explained in other branches
> of Vygotskyan psychology, namely the emergence of free will. Secondly, the
> choices that the speaker makes are made significant (made meaningful) not
> simply by pointing to context (this is really only true of infant language)
> but instead by all the choices that the speaker did NOT make but COULD HAVE
> made (this "could have" prevents the theory from dualism--the ideal is
> simply the potentially real). And thirdly, finally, meaning potential is
> always linked to but distinct from meaning proper precisely in the sense of
> NON-participation: meaning potential is simply the road not taken.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >From what I have been reading and thinking, the biggest difference
> between
> > the conceptual system presented by Vygotsky and the of Leontiev (most of
> > which is well known) is the difference of the conceptualisation of
> activity
> > or the symbolic level (which is mostly absent for Vygotsky).
> >
> > Without necessarily refuting David's points, but indicating an
> alternative
> > interpretation, I would say:
> >
> > 1. Learning how to apply or use something is still a constructive act.
> One
> > does not have to understand the full technical make up of a component in
> > order to make use of it.  Indeed this is would entail an infinite
> regress.
> >
> > 2. I'm not fully clear what the assertion is with respect to active
> > participation in meaning potential, but it is perfectly reasonable to
> > revisit the problem space that an old artefact is drawn from only to
> > rediscover what this product achieves in terms of design.  This is
> actually
> > an excellent source of edification.
> >
> > 3. Contemplation can be understood to be in response to an active
> problem.
> > There is nothing to say that activity must be glued to a specific site.
> > When I am programming, I am forever walking away from the computer to
> solve
> > or express a particular problem.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 13 January 2016 at 10:02, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Haydi:
> > >
> > > In the very beginning of the text that Huw is reading, the HIstory of
> the
> > > Development of the Higher Psychic Functions, Vygotsky writes of the
> basic
> > > division psychology, between those who would treat the mind as
> something
> > > made by "Deus Sive Natura" ("God, i.e. Nature"), like the eye or the
> hand
> > > or any other physical phenomenon, and those who would treat the mind as
> > (to
> > > quote Mike's epigraph) an object which itself creates history. In one
> > case,
> > > we have an object which really can be usefully described synoptically,
> > like
> > > a sculpture that we can walk all the way around. But in the other we
> > have a
> > > process which can only be described dynamically, like a piece of
> theatre
> > > that walks around us while we sit and observe.
> > >
> > > Of course, we CAN argue, the way that Vico would argue, that to produce
> > the
> > > process is to fully understand it: we cannot fully understand the eye
> or
> > > the hand, because although these things are part of us, they were made
> by
> > > God. We can understand a telescope or a hammer, because although these
> > > things are not part of us, they were made by ourselves. And we can even
> > > argue that the process of making it is essentially the process of
> > > understanding it: once you have made a telescope or a hammer and used
> it,
> > > you have understood everything there is to know about it. That is, I
> > > understand it, the position you attribute to dialectical logic, to
> CHAT,
> > > and to Davydov, and I think you attribute it correctly. The problem is
> > that
> > > I am not sure that the position itself is correct.
> > >
> > > The reason is this: we may be able to actively participate in the
> process
> > > of producing and using a telescope or a hammer. We may even (although
> > this
> > > is much more problematic) actively participate in the process of
> > producing
> > > and using a mind or a personality. But our observational standpoint is
> > > nevertheless fixed by our position in time: we can never "actively
> > > participate" in constructing the counterfactual potential, the  meaning
> > > potential, of a telescope or a hammer, much less a mind or a
> personality.
> > > Our active participation is always fixed in the actual, and meaning
> > > potential is accessible only through contemplation. It may be
> > contemplation
> > > with activity firmly in mind, but it is only potentially active and not
> > > actually so.
> > >
> > > I think this is a fundamental difference between Vygotsky and Leontiev,
> > and
> > > the activity theory that followed him: For Vygotsky, the autistic
> > function
> > > (that is, the irrealist function, the contemplative function which
> turns
> > > away from immediate activity) may come late (as Vygotsky points out, it
> > > receives major impetus from the acquisition of words and then concepts,
> > > both of which come well after the beginning of social life), but this
> > > "autistic" contemplative function is then never out of date: concepts
> are
> > > not formed purely through activity, but also through the turning away
> > from
> > > reality oriented activity. And in that, he has the complete support of
> > > Lenin, who knew a thing or two about how concepts are joined to action.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Macquarie University
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:06 AM, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks , David , for the two-parag. epigraph as always !
> > > >
> > > > --First of all, Kant says we cannot know / cognize a material object
> in
> > > > itself because a priori we don't have an image of it so  we are
> unable
> > to
> > > > have an overlap between the two ; hence agnosticism let alone 'inner
> > > > connections' of a whole as 'moments' . Dialectical Logic (close
> > relative
> > > to
> > > > CHAT) says as man relies on object-related activity while an ideal
> > > > adaptable to the future coming object ever runs through the activity
> to
> > > the
> > > > finish , is able to penetrate the depths . When you put the mental
> > model
> > > > into a material model , in reifying or objectifying that model into a
> > > > finished product and all through the durational time , you can see
> what
> > > is
> > > > necessary , essential and what is not . In higher momentums of
> > > conception ,
> > > > you reach concepts and this is the time you've got a theoretical
> > rational
> > > > cognitive copy of the inner mechanisms and transformations of the
> > related
> > > > object or objects . When we say 'ideal' is a moment of an activity ,
> we
> > > > mean it's ever running through uninterruptedly because the whole
> entity
> > > > falls down , collapses otherwise . Or if you aim to take it wholly
> > apart
> > > ,
> > > > again nothing is left for objectfication . Davydov says we cannot
> stop
> > at
> > > > phenomenology ; it's not to our will or taste ; we should ever
> > reproduce
> > > > our ever changing needs and products and that needs true science and
> > true
> > > > science needs true concepts . Yes , we want the object to move
> > > (dynamicity)
> > > > according to its inner transformations (moments) which has come to us
> > as
> > > > fixated knowledge in speech and skills historically . We don't want
> to
> > be
> > > > stuck in our position observing it to move . If you take moments as
> > > moments
> > > > of your positioning while observing , you've not been able to convert
> > > those
> > > > phenomenal aspects (empiricism) into innermost movements hence
> > > agnosticism
> > > > prevails . Yes ,  We could somehow treat these moments as always
> > > inhering ,
> > > > how ? Are neoformations parts and parcels of some detachable
> > independent
> > > > separate phnomenon ? Are they not fused , interwoven , intertwined
> > > moments
> > > > of inner mechanisms of whole development (internalization ,
> > > appropriation ,
> > > > instruction , development , upbringing involved) ? Does development
> or
> > > even
> > > > periods of development contain , include some parts and parcels or do
> > > they
> > > > subsume some moments of developmental transformations , those moments
> > > still
> > > > sublated within the whole process reversible if development defects ?
> > > >
> > > > --Secondly , we agreed that moment is different from the instance as
> we
> > > > took it as tokens , samples , etc. Everything began with the very
> fact
> > .
> > > >
> > > > --Thirdly , with what I said , I suppose you've been responded to .
> Our
> > > > focus is on moment as some (aspect as you say ; I first refrained
> from
> > > > using 'aspectual' because aspect , too , does not convey the
> intention
> > > > precisely) variable of a successive uninterrupted incessant moving
> > > movable
> > > > whole in contrast to parts and parcels even components of some
> > > > static internally immovable pseudo-stagnant whole which , if
> > potentially
> > > > realizable , will damage genuine cognition .
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Haydi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > *From:* David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
> > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 9:08:03
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Volkelt's diagram (LSV's HMF Vol 4)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Haydi--I have always wondered what the word "molar" means (in
> > the
> > > > wk of Leontiev) and what the relationship to chemistry and dentistry
> > is.
> > > > Your explanation cleared this up, as well as clearing up the relation
> > > > between "moment" and music.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure that Andy's contribution--the idea that what is meant
> > is
> > > a
> > > > moment in calculus--is so irrelevant. You see, for me there are three
> > > > problems that we have to work out in annotating Vygotsky's use of
> > > "moment"
> > > > (and actually I think that the task of annotating Vygotsky's work is
> > the
> > > > real next step in Vygotsky studies, not mindless "mythbusting").
> > > >
> > > > First of all, "moment" is used in Kant, in Hegel, and in
> phenomenology
> > in
> > > > a way I would characterize as SYNOPTIC--that is, to describe
> something
> > > like
> > > > a sculpture which does not move, which we may circumambulate and
> > describe
> > > > from various sides. But in Vygotsky the "object" being described is
> > > almost
> > > > always no object at all, but rather an unfolding process. Where the
> > > > synoptic object does not move and can be circumambulated, the dynamic
> > > > object moves, and we are usually stuck in one position, observing it.
> > > This
> > > > means that the "moments" are only aspects of the whole in retrospect:
> > as
> > > we
> > > > observe they tend to appear as neoformations which were not even
> > present,
> > > > much less typical, of the phenomenon previously. We could somehow
> treat
> > > > these moments as always inhering, the way that puberty is implicit
> in a
> > > > newborn infant) but treating real psychic phenomena like speech or
> > > > musicality that way seems absurdly teleological and seems to deny the
> > > > irreducible unpredictability of development. I think that the idea of
> > > > "moment" as being a moment of an integral gets us around this
> (because
> > > even
> > > > nonlinear functions can be integrated). Certainly if I were
> explaining
> > > > "moment" to a high school teacher of science, I would use the example
> > of
> > > > angular momentum.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, Vygotsky (and also Hegel) sometimes uses "moment" and
> > sometimes
> > > > uses "instance". Are these different? It seems to me that they are.
> The
> > > > cline of instantiation, in Hallidayan linguistics, is quite different
> > > from
> > > > the description of development. A text is an instance of a language,
> > but
> > > > it's not a 'moment'. A context of situation is an instance of a
> context
> > > of
> > > > culture, but it's not a moment of it. We cannot say that "weather"
> is a
> > > > "moment" in the development of a climate: it's an instance. Viewed
> > > > synoptically, weather and climate are simply to different
> chronological
> > > > sections of one and the same phenomenon (akin to using
> "phylogenesis",
> > > > "ontogenesis", "microgenesis"). But that brings me to a third
> problem,
> > > > where it seems to me that Haydi's musical analogy is indispensible.
> > > >
> > > > I think that it is only when we treat the phenomenon to be described
> > > > synoptically, and not when we treat it dynamically, that we can
> > seriously
> > > > say that, for example, weather and climate are descriptions of the
> same
> > > > phenomenon which differ in granularity. In fact, weather is chiefly
> > > > influenced by wind; the angle of the sun (or the relationship between
> > > solar
> > > > radiation absorbed and solar radiation reflected out into space) is
> > > > present, but it is much less immediately causal. With climate, it's
> the
> > > > other way around. When we say that word meaning develops, we see much
> > the
> > > > same qualitative shifts: sense is a constitutive moment of infant
> > speech
> > > > while signiication is quite peripheral, whereas with dialogue on xmca
> > we
> > > > have the reverse relationship. This shift in the organic make up of
> the
> > > > phenomenon also occurs with other dynamic phenomena, and an obvious
> way
> > > to
> > > > grasp this is Haydi's example of music: recitative in opera, for
> > example,
> > > > is dominated by melody (derived from speech), but arias are much more
> > > > regular and rhythmical (and for this reason stand somewhat closer to
> > > > emotion and to logical thought, even when looked at as text).
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear all ,
> > > >
> > > > Look at this please !
> > > >
> > > > [[V. S. Bibler has singled out the following basic features of a
> > thought
> > > > experiment: 1) The
> > > > object of cognition is mentally transferred to conditions where its
> > > > essence can be revealed
> > > > particularly clearly; 2) this object then undergoes further mental
> > > > transformations; 3) this same
> > > > experiment leads to the formation of a system of mental links in
> which
> > > the
> > > > object is
> > > > “embedded.” If the construction of this object can still be
> represented
> > > as
> > > > a process of
> > > > abstraction of the real object’s properties, then this third moment
> > > > essentially becomes a
> > > > productive contribution to the mentally represented object. It is
> only
> > > > within this special
> > > > system of links that the object’s content gets revealed.]]
> > > >
> > > > This is the same with "activity" as "molar" , that is , activity ,
> > action
> > > > , operation are not parts or stages of a whole , discrete and
> separate
> > > even
> > > > componential . As I can think of it , it is a point in a circular
> > > > succession of a whole which could naturally be manifest in temporal
> > > > instants . By definition , in a round of activity , neither itself ,
> > nor
> > > > action , nor operation could keep to their constancy or stability or
> > > > independence or invariability. At each point of succession or
> > > motionality ,
> > > > because of opposites , alterations in drives , motives
> > > > , emotional incentives or stimuation , each of the three could be
> > > converted
> > > > in the other as we all have seen .
> > > >
> > > > And there's an affinity in music domain . A whole melody is played
> with
> > > > all nuances , pitch , other contours in their entire composition .
> > It's a
> > > > whole to be absorbed in its entirety so that the invited pleasurable
> > > > feeling is obtained . Usually some individual wouldn't refer to a
> > > > particular part or stage orietating on which this or that kind of
> > affect
> > > or
> > > > ecstacy runs through the soul . The individual might even stop to
> think
> > > of
> > > > how to express it and he might  finally resort to imitation . Then ,
> > the
> > > > philosopher , might refer to that particular point or that single
> note
> > in
> > > > whole composition or in playing as moment or as a temporal instant on
> > > which
> > > > such and such a manifestation , event , episode , feature , state
> > occurs
> > > .
> > > > Taking that single note apart from the whole might be uncognizable or
> > > > immanipulative in itself and the whole without it or with a
> substitute
> > > > might lose the favor . Another example might be the "ideal" which is
> > said
> > > > to be immersed in material activity . Davydov's works are good
> sources
> > > for
> > > > such qurries but I can't give a locus now .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > Haydi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>