From nataliag@sfu.ca Fri Dec 1 13:04:33 2017 From: nataliag@sfu.ca (Natalia Gajdamaschko) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:04:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Invitation to contribute to a special issue of Mind, Culture, and Activity Message-ID: <183581679.867399.1512162273851.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Dear All! As you may already know, we are organizing a special issue of Mind, Culture, and Activity to celebrate the work of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, including the polyphonic autobiography. We were hoping that you would consider contributing to this special issue as well. We have attached the call to this message. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Natalia, Jennifer and Martin. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MCA-Special-Issue-Call-for-Abstracts-Nov-2017_mp.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 113759 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171201/b431298a/attachment.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Dec 2 17:12:19 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 10:12:19 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6IFRoZSBBbmF0b215IG9mIHRoZSBBcGU=?= In-Reply-To: <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9acab008-b9f5-bd11-4e0c-d851c26f48bc@mira.net> <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: When Marx talks about human anatomy being the key to the anatomy of the ape, he is mostly talking about artists, not philosophers or scientists. Yes, he does say that bourgeois society contains feudal (rent) and even slave property relations (sexual harrassment on the job) within it, but the reason why we cannot read off feudal and slave property relations from their mature form in bourgeois society is simply that each society, including bourgeois society, has a strong tendency to remake all previous relations in its own image. So it is simply not the case that the ruins of feudalism and of slave societies lie like living fossils somewhere in the basement of the bourgeois citadel: although bourgeois society has abolished all the estates, the rent market is still called "real estate" in English (not: "unmoveable property", as in France), and unlike the Ottomans, Belusconi, Dominique Strauss-Khan, and Donald Trump have to pay their harems a wage. Marx says that some art impresses by its 'precocity" and other art by its "backwardness", but that for us the Greeks were normal children. I suppose everybody imagines that their own childhood was "normal", and everybody is right, to the extent that the "norm" is taken to be the adult. This is why, Marx says, we are impressed not by the slave elements of Greek art but by the intimations of modernity in it. This is even true when we are considering those classical elements that remind us of ourselves: we are touched by this prelapsarian, pre-bourgeois view of our own culture, and we feel a certain dishonest nostalgia for it. I think that the post-Romantic conceit that modern art is in some way childlike or innocent is quite similar--and equally wrong. On the one hand, seeiing Picasso or Pushkin or Nazim Hikmet as overgrown children is unfair to their art; there is no significant sense in which Guernica or Eugene Onegin or Hiroshima reflect a child sensibility, and to imagine that a sophisticated political statement can somehow be articulated in the world view of a child is to commit the fallacy of imagining the Greeks as "normal children", destined to grow up as us). On the other hand, I think it is also unfair to children. One of the most creative things any child is called on to do is to master speech, and when children do this, they are quite conscious that they can only succeed by struggling against their lack of experience, their lack of memory, and consequently their own (involuntary) creativity and (non-volitional) imagination. Of course, volitional creativity and and voluntary imagination play an enormous role here, but no child is trying to create or imagine their own language. David Kellogg David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full 2017-11-29 22:41 GMT+09:00 Alexander Surmava : > > > ??????? ????! > ????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? > ??????????????????? ???????? ? CHAT ???? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? > ?????????. > ?? ????????? ISCAR ? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ? > ??????????? ? ???? ? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ????? > ???????? ????? ???????, ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ????? ?????????, ??? > ??, ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? > ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? ??? > ???????????. J > Dear Andy! > It's funny, but for the first time I came across a specific approach to > CHAT, characteristic of the right Vygotskians thanks to the same Jan > Valsiner. > At the ISCAR Congress in Rome, I made a report "Ilyenkov and the > Revolution in Psychology" in his symposium. And Jan so much did not like > the title of my report, and especially the mention of the word Revolution > in it, that he, forgetting about elementary academic politeness, > accompanied my report with the most venomous and sarcastic remarks, > effectively disrupting my speech. > ??? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ??????????????. > ??????????, ???????? ??????????, ???? ????? ????????, ????? ????????? ? ? > ??????. ??, ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ? > ????????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???, ??? ?????????? ?????? > ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????? > ? ??????????, ? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????? > ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ????????????, ?? ??ognitive > science?. ??????? ?????? ???????????? ? ????? ? ?????? ??????. ?? ?????, > ??????, ?? ???????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????. ??? ??????? > ? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????? ???-??, ??????? ?? ?????? > ????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ? > ?????????? ???? ? ??? ????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? > ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ??????? ? ?????? > ? ???????? ????????? ? ??? ??????. > Of course, such characters, if you try, you can meet in Moscow too. But, > considering the very low interest of Russian psychologists in the domestic > theoretical psychology, those who profess the right political views prefer > to completely discard the theoretical legacy of both Vygotsky and Leontyev > as Soviet ideological garbage and engage in retelling fashionable Western > concepts from psychoanalysis to ??ognitive science?. Therefore, the right > Vygotskians in Russia are extremely rare. It does not follow from this that > Russia is filled with the Left Vygotskians. For leftism in the Russian > academic community is considered something that lies beyond the bounds of > decency. Therefore, most often consider themselves to Vygotsky's school > researchers without any political position, anxious primarily to get in > unison with Western interest in his figure. > ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???????????? ??? ????????? > ? ????????? ? ? ?????????, ?? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????, ??? > ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ? ?????? > ????????????? ????????. > The sarcasm of the Estonian colleague did not prompt me, too, to > reconsider my attitude to the revolution and to Marxism, but provided > additional proof that a false political position very often goes hand in > hand with a false theoretical position. > ???????, ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????. ????? > ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? > ??????? ? ???????????. > However, here it is necessary to make a fundamental clarification. The > connection between political sympathies and antipathies with scientific > views is far from simple and unambiguous. > ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?????????????? ????? ? ????????????? ???????? ? > ???????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ????????????? ??????? ???????. ? ??? ? > ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?.?.?????????? ? ??? ???????????? > ???????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ????????. > From the fact that the theorist adheres to the left and progressive views > in politics does not automatically follow that his theoretical views are > true. And I'm ready to show an example of the same Vygotsky and his > favorite Marx's aphorism about the human anatomy and the anatomy of apes. > ???? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????????? ??? ???????? > ????????? ????????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? > ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? > ????????????? ??? ????????, ??????? (??????????) ??? ???????. ?? ???? ?? > ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ?? ???????????? ? ???????, > ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? > ????????, ?????????? ?????. > My first and fundamental reproach to the theorizing of LSV is reproach > methodological. Vygotsky undertakes to discuss the so-called "higher mental > functions" without having to worry about defining the functions "natural" > or "inferior", the psyche (zoopsyche) as such. That is, he does not ascend > from the abstract to the concrete. Not having understood a simple, abstract > basis, he proceeds to a theoretical analysis of the most developed, > concrete forms. > ? ??? ?? ????????? ??????????. ? ??????????? ??????, ????????? > ????????????? ?????? LSV ????????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? > ?????????, ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????. ? ?????????, > ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? LSV ?? ????????. ????? > ???, ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? - ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? > ???? ????????????? > Moreover, this is not an accidental oversight. In support of his specific > method, which was strictly reverse of the Marxist one, Vygotsky refers to > ... the aphorism of Marx himself about "human anatomy", which is the key to > the "anatomy of ape". Unfortunately, nothing beyond this quote in support > of this method LSV did not leave us. Meanwhile, in order to overturn the > method of Marx - the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete - > one misunderstood quotation of Marx himself is clearly not enough ... > ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ? > ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? > ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ?????????. ????? ????, ???? > ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????, ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? > ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ? ????????????. > Let us note that Marx himself does not have a contradiction between his > "ascent" and his thought about the key role of the image of the whole for > understanding the development of this whole from its elementary, abstract > foundation. Moreover, one cannot be understood without the other, an > "anatomical" metaphor cannot be correctly understood outside the context of > "ascension from the abstract to the concrete." > ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???: ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?????, > ? ???? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ???????? > ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????. ? > ???: ?? ??? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? > ?????? ????? ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????.? > In Marx, this idea sounds like this: "Human anatomy contains a key to the > anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the > subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the > higher development is already known. In addition: ??in the theoretical > method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the > presupposition?. > ???? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ? ???, ??? ???????? ????? ???? *??????* > ??????, ??? ????????. ??????, ????????, ?????????? ????? ???? ????????????? > ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ? ????? > ??????????. ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ????, ??????? ? > ?????????? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, > ?? ? ???? ???????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????, > ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????. ? ? ???? ?????? > ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??????. > In any way, Marx does not affirm that "higher" can be understood earlier > than ?inferior? can. The higher, the developed, the concrete can be really > understood only if we could systematically theoretically reproduce the > origin and genesis of this concrete in the very reality itself. However, > this is possible only if, beginning with the ultimate abstraction, with the > famous "germ cell" we are moving not just anywhere, but to the concrete > one, which we actually want to understand, and so, in order not to lose our > way, we need an original compass. Moreover, the role of such a compass is > played by the image of a concrete whole, seized by an aesthetically and > morally developed imagination. > ???, ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????? ?? > ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ???, ??????? ?????????????? ? > ???????????? ???????, ??????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? > ????????? ???????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? > ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????????, ????? ??????????? > ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ???. ??, > ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???, ? ???? ???????. ? > ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????. ?????? ?? ?????? > ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????, ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????. > Therefore, if we want to understand the human consciousness, the human > psyche, we must first find an elementary abstraction, the one that really > exists, which in the process of its development necessarily generates human > consciousness. From our point of view, this phenomenon is the most > elementary living organism, reflecting the objective world that opposes it > with its vital activity. But, the developed human consciousness does not > arise in one step. Moreover, in order to understand in which direction to > move in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete one, one > must imagine a goal. It is about the image of this goal that Marx says, > referring to the notorious "human anatomy". > ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????????, > ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ????????????? > ????????, ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????, > ???? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? > ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? > ???????????????, ?? ??? ??????-?????????????? ???????. > Marx himself, moving from simple commodity exchange to surplus value, > profit and rent did not move anywhere, but along the vector of historical > development, the direction of which he guessed with the help of > Shakespeare, Moliere, Goethe and Balzac, for only an artistically and > morally developed imagination is capable of retaining the image > historically developed whole directly, before his scientific and > theoretical analysis. > ?????? ???, ? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ? > ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????. > Only in this way, in accordance with the method of Capital, moving from > the abstract to the concrete one can come to a scientific understanding of > the subject. > ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????, ?? ????? > ????????? ??????????????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? > ?????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? > ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ???????????, ?????????? ????????, ??? ? ?? > ??????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ???????????, ? ?????? > ??? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ?????????. > On the contrary, if we take a look at Vygotsky's theorizing, we will have > to admit that, contrary to his sincere desire to follow the old classic's > method, he was stuck in a more or less casual contemplation of empirically > concrete - speech, experiences, age crises, and without trying to grope for > their real path , historical formation, and thus never having risen to the > level of a theoretically concrete, level of scientifically true. > ?????????, ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, > ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ? ???????????????? ????????? > ????????????? ????????, ??, ? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ???????????? > ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????????? > ??? ???????????. > Vygotsky, like many of his colleagues, rightly noted that speech plays an > essential role in the functioning of the developed human consciousness, > but, unfortunately, they could not go beyond arbitrary fantasies about the > mysterious "interweaving" of it with an equally mysterious "thinking". > ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????????, ?????????????? ?????? > ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, ?? ????? > ?? ??????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ???? ????? > ?????? ????????? (? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????????), > ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ????????? ? > ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ????? ????????? > ?????????, ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ???????. > This example is especially characteristic, because rational, dialectical > logic consists not in describing individual random empirical phenomena, not > through their "generalization" and unproductive attempts to establish > between them certain special relations (in this case - the relationship of > the same "intertwining"), but in finding in the very nature of the thing of > its simple living foundation and tracing the path of self-discrimination > and differentiation of this universal basis, the generation of its opposite > organs. > ????????????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? > ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? (?????????? ????????????) ??????, > ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ????? ?????? > ????????????? ? ??????????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. > The specific "human anatomy", as a reference point, allowing to move in > the right direction from the initial abstraction of life (object-oriented > activity) in general, from the "anatomy of ape" is in a truly aesthetically > and morally grasped image of a free man and citizen, actively, with his > labor producing and reproducing life in all its forms and manifestations. > ????? ??????, ??? ??????, ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ??????????. ????????? ?????? > ???????. ??, ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ? > ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? > ?????????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????? > ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????, ? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? > (????????) ??????????? ???-?? ????????? ? ?????????????. ?? ???? ???? > ????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? > ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????-?? ????????? ????? ? > ?????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? > ???????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????, > ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? > ??????????? ????????????, ???????????? ?????. > ??????? ? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? > ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????? > ??????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??? ? ??????? ? ???????? > ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ????? ????. ?????????????? > ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, > ?? ??????? ex professo, ?? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???????? ???????????. > In other words, for Marx, Spinoza, and even Anaxagoras, the moral and > aesthetic ideal of man is a working man. To work is to think. Yes, of > course, there is a division of labor in human society and today concrete > human labor and instruments of this labor are divided among individuals so > that to an individual there is only an infinitesimal part of the > instruments of human activity, and therefore its very activity (thinking) > is somehow partial and one-sided. But it must be clearly understood that > any abstract theoretical activity receives confirmation of its dignity as > something true if and only if it was born as an integral part of practical > activity and then fled to the skies of high theoretical abstractions and is > able to return to sinful earth and become the principle of a new sensory > activity, the activity of a stroke. > Man is an active being, who first of all is opposed not by the obedient > matter of signs, which he can cut at his own will, but practically an > active being, which is opposed by the sensual world, which is disobedient > to his will, a world whose forms and laws a man has to reckon with if he > wants to live. Accordingly, the moral and aesthetic ideal for a Marxist is > not a specialist in the composition of crafty signs and in ingenious formal > handling of these signs, not an ideologist ex professo, but a man as a > worker, a man as an artist, and a man as a materialist theorist. > > ? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ?.?.?????????, ??? ???? > ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ???? ?????? > ???????? ? ????? ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????. ??? ?? ????????? > ????????????????? ?????? ? ?????, ??????????? ????????, ??? ????? ???????? > ????? ? ???????, ??? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????????, > ?? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????. ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? > ???????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???? ???????????? > ??????????, ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ? ????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? sine > qua non ?????????, ? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? > ???????? ??-???????? ? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ? > ?????????? ?? ??????? ????. > In the light of what has been said, we must state that LS Vygotsky, with > all his sincere assurances of his desire to follow in the footsteps of > Marx, moved at this point in the direction directly opposite from Marxism. > So he carefully contrasts tools and signs, emphasizing in every possible > way that between the tools of labor and signs, or "psychological tools," > there is only an analogy, but in no way an identity. That the "thinking" of > a person is only the operation with the data obtained by the individual in > the act of sense perception, which in itself has nothing to do with > object-oriented activity, and moreover, is a prerequisite, the condition of > sine qua non of the latter, and that the main, if not the only task of > thinking is essentially reduced to the so-called "generalization" of > sensory data and the appropriation of generic names for them. > ?? ????????? ????????, ???, ??????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? ?????????? > ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ? > ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????????, ??? > ?????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? > ??????? ?????, ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ????????????? ???????? (??? > ????????) ? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ??????????????? ?????. > But what has been said means that, contrary to the good wishes, a real > guide in the movement of the theory, the goal to which the theoretician > should move in the act of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, that > being whose "anatomy" was regarded as something supreme and ideal for > Vygotsky was not working man, but a typical ideologist with his universal > master key (or flail) in the form of a crafty word, a verbal ideological > sign. > ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???????? ?.?.?????????? ? ???? ????? ? > ?????-?? ?????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??? ?????, ??? ? ???? > ????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????. ????? > ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????? > ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????/????????? ? ??? > ?????????????, ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????. ?? ???? > ???????? ??????. > ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????? > ???????????????? ?.?.?????????, ??-??????, ?? ??? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????, ??? ??? ? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??? ???????, ? > ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ???????????? > ???? ????????????, ???????? ??????????? ???????, ????????, ????????????? > ???????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? > (????????). ?, ??-??????, ??? ????????? ????????, ????????? ?? ?????? > ??????????????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ??? > ? ??????? ????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? > ??????? ??????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ? > ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??, ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ?? > ????????????, ? ?? ??????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????????, ??? > ????????????? ??????????? ?.?.?????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ??????. > We are infinitely far from reproaching Vygotsky for this reason in some > bad moral and social attitudes. Moreover, in this very typical idealistic > scheme, he was not at all original. Exactly the same scheme for the > misleading unprepared reader of the title "Marxism and the philosophy of > language" left us Bakhtin / Voloshinov with his brilliant, self-revealing > term "ideological sign". But the facts are facts. > Calling things by their proper names, we must admit that in his theorizing > LS Vygotsky, first, did not go from the abstract to the concrete, for he > did not discern in the phenomenon of life as such, in the object-oriented > relation of the subject to the world, positing by his activity the realm of > his objectivity, the most abstract phenomenon, the development, the > concretization of which is nothing more than the development of human > activity, that is, the person with his consciousness ("psyche"). > And, secondly, his conception of thinking, proceeding from the purely > sensationalist notion that sensations are "given" to us by means of a > purely mechanical functioning of the so-called "sense organs", irrespective > of any kind of object-oriented activity, and thinking is only > "Generalization" and designation with the help of their signs, of course > infinitely far from both materialism and dialectics. In other words, we > have to state that the theoretical reflections of Vygotsky do not fit into > Marxist logic. > ? ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? > ????????? ? ???????, ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????? > ??????????????. ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????. > At this point, in the non-Marxism of Vygotsky, our conclusion at first > glance coincides with the thesis persistently propagated today by the > right-wing Vygotskians. But with an external coincidence, there is a > diametrically opposite reason behind a similar conclusion. > ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ????, ???, > ??-??????, ??? ? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? > ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????, ?, ??-??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ???? > ??????? ????, ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, > ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? > ??? ?????????. ????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????, > ????? ?? ????????? ??????????????. > The argument of the same Yasnitsky in this matter boils down to the fact > that, first, like the "all" Soviet theorists, Vygotsky was not, but only > had to pretend to be a Marxist, and secondly, that there was no big > trouble, for "Marxism" itself is an empty and unproductive ideology that > could only hinder the theorist, if he seriously tried to lean on it. The > weight of both these arguments, we will not even discuss, because of their > obvious inadequacy. > ????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? > ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? > ??????? ?????????????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? > ????????????? ???????, ? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? > ???????. ?????? ?????????????? ???? ? ????? ???????????? ????? ? > ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?.?.????????? ? ?.?.?????????, ???? > ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????? > ?????????? ????????????? ??????? (????????????) ??????. > On the contrary, in Vygotsky's failure to lay the foundation of Marxist > psychology, we see a real theoretical failure and see for it not some > external ideological reasons, but the unsettledness of some of the > fundamental theoretical problems, and above all the problem of an adequate, > materialistic understanding of Spinoza's ideas. The first real steps to the > new Marxist science of human consciousness happened to Leontiev and > Ilyenkov, although they did only the very first steps on this path and > bequeathed us the task of developing a truly scientific (Marxist) theory. > *??:* Andy Blunden > *????:* David Kellogg ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > *??????????:* ?????, 22 ?????? 2017 3:01 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one, > David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right > quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much > as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to > nostalgia at all. > > Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very > first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998 > that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a > colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did. > I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and > challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape" > aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out > that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking > that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in > some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes, > Marx was wrong." > > That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in > search of other introductory works, and I think it was then > that I found Lois Holzman. > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T. > > Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this > > passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a > > kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true > > in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism, > > the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning > > South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is > > a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think > > this passage says something very different: any language > > contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply > > that a language is reducible to a history or a history can > > be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's > > Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't > > mean that it is Homer for grown-ups. > > > > David > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > The aphorism was reproduced in > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/ > critique-pol-economy/index.htm > > critique-pol-economy/index.htm> > > , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859, > > most of > > which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the > > Crisis of Psychology, > > > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about > > human anatomy holding > > > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this > > elsewhere (in his > > > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and > > obviously finds it an > > > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its > > non-teleological > > > character: he knows that saying that humans > > developed from apes is not the > > > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become > > humans. > > > > > > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can > > figure out, the Grundrisse > > > wasn't published until 1939, five years after > > Vygotsky's death. Did > > > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some > > other place where Marx > > > says this that I don't know about? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 09:44:40 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 17:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6CdCe0YLQsjogIFJlOiBUaGUgQW5hdG9teSBv?= =?utf-8?q?f_the_Ape?= In-Reply-To: References: <9acab008-b9f5-bd11-4e0c-d851c26f48bc@mira.net> <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <188307954.1140524.1512323080529@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Daviv! You assert that when Marx spoke of the anatomy of a man and the anatomy of a monkey, he was mostly talking about artists, not philosophers or scientists. I think that in this issue you are absolutely wrong. All this reasoning is part of a chapter called "Method of Political Economy". But the political economy of Marx is a science in the strictest sense of the word.However, if the aphorism about human anatomy relates only to art, then Vygotsky has no right to refer to him, because he sees his task as a theorist in the creation of scientific psychology, and not in artistic beauties.Anyway, all that is said does not cancel the fact that in his theory, Vygotsky does not ascend from the abstract to the concrete, and hence his method is not a method of Marxist.By the way, Leontiev reproached Vygotsky for abandoning their COMMON plans to begin research, starting from the invvestigation of the concept of life.? We believe that Leontiev?did not quite succeed in realization of the plan, but at least he tried to rise from the abstract to the concrete, from the definition of life to definition of developed object oriented activity. Sasha ??: David Kellogg ????: ?????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????????, 3 ??????? 2017 4:13 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: The Anatomy of the Ape When Marx talks about human anatomy being the key to the anatomy of the ape, he is mostly talking about artists, not philosophers or scientists. Yes, he does say that bourgeois society contains feudal (rent) and even slave property relations (sexual harrassment on the job) within it, but the reason why we cannot read off feudal and slave property relations from their mature form in bourgeois society is simply that each society, including bourgeois society, has a strong tendency to remake all previous relations in its own image. So it is simply not the case that the ruins of feudalism and of slave societies lie like living fossils somewhere in the basement of the bourgeois citadel: although bourgeois society has abolished all the estates, the rent market is still called "real estate" in English (not: "unmoveable property", as in France), and unlike the Ottomans, Belusconi, Dominique Strauss-Khan, and Donald Trump have to pay their harems a wage. Marx says that some art impresses by its 'precocity" and other art by its "backwardness", but that for us the Greeks were normal children. I suppose everybody imagines that their own childhood was "normal", and everybody is right, to the extent that the "norm" is taken to be the adult. This is why, Marx says, we are impressed not by the slave elements of Greek art but by the intimations of modernity in it. This is even true when we are considering those classical elements that remind us of ourselves: we are touched by this prelapsarian, pre-bourgeois view of our own culture, and we feel a certain dishonest nostalgia for it. I think that the post-Romantic conceit that modern art is in some way childlike or innocent is quite similar--and equally wrong.? On the one hand, seeiing Picasso or Pushkin or Nazim Hikmet as overgrown children is unfair to their art; there is no significant sense in which Guernica or Eugene Onegin or Hiroshima reflect a child sensibility, and to imagine that a sophisticated political statement can somehow be articulated in the world view of a child is to commit the fallacy of imagining the Greeks as "normal children", destined to grow up as us). On the other hand, I think it is also unfair to children. One of the most creative things any child is called on to do is to master speech, and when children do this, they are quite conscious that they can only succeed by struggling against their lack of experience, their lack of memory, and consequently their own (involuntary) creativity and (non-volitional) imagination. Of course, volitional creativity and and voluntary imagination play an enormous role here, but no child is trying to create or imagine their own language. David Kellogg David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full 2017-11-29 22:41 GMT+09:00 Alexander Surmava : > > > ??????? ????! > ????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? > ??????????????????? ???????? ? CHAT ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? > ?????????. > ?? ????????? ISCAR ? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ? > ??????????? ? ???? ? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ????? > ???????? ????? ???????, ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ????? ?????????, ??? > ??, ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? > ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? ??? > ???????????. J > Dear Andy! > It's funny, but for the first time I came across a specific approach to > CHAT, characteristic of the right Vygotskians thanks to the same Jan > Valsiner. > At the ISCAR Congress in Rome, I made a report "Ilyenkov and the > Revolution in Psychology" in his symposium. And Jan so much did not like > the title of my report, and especially the mention of the word Revolution > in it, that he, forgetting about elementary academic politeness, > accompanied my report with the most venomous and sarcastic remarks, > effectively disrupting my speech. > ??? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ??????????????. > ??????????, ???????? ??????????, ???? ????? ????????, ????? ????????? ? ? > ??????. ??, ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ? > ????????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???, ??? ?????????? ?????? > ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????? > ? ??????????, ? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????? > ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ????????????, ?? ??ognitive > science?. ??????? ?????? ???????????? ? ????? ? ?????? ??????. ?? ?????, > ??????, ?? ???????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????. ??? ??????? > ? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????? ???-??, ??????? ?? ?????? > ????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ? > ?????????? ???? ? ??? ????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? > ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ??????? ? ?????? > ? ???????? ????????? ? ??? ??????. > Of course, such characters, if you try, you can meet in Moscow too. But, > considering the very low interest of Russian psychologists in the domestic > theoretical psychology, those who profess the right political views prefer > to completely discard the theoretical legacy of both Vygotsky and Leontyev > as Soviet ideological garbage and engage in retelling fashionable Western > concepts from psychoanalysis to ??ognitive science?. Therefore, the right > Vygotskians in Russia are extremely rare. It does not follow from this that > Russia is filled with the Left Vygotskians. For leftism in the Russian > academic community is considered something that lies beyond the bounds of > decency. Therefore, most often consider themselves to Vygotsky's school > researchers without any political position, anxious primarily to get in > unison with Western interest in his figure. > ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???????????? ??? ????????? > ? ????????? ? ? ?????????, ?? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????, ??? > ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ? ?????? > ????????????? ????????. > The sarcasm of the Estonian colleague did not prompt me, too, to > reconsider my attitude to the revolution and to Marxism, but provided > additional proof that a false political position very often goes hand in > hand with a false theoretical position. > ???????, ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????. ????? > ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? > ??????? ? ???????????. > However, here it is necessary to make a fundamental clarification. The > connection between political sympathies and antipathies with scientific > views is far from simple and unambiguous. > ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?????????????? ????? ? ????????????? ???????? ? > ???????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ????????????? ??????? ???????. ? ??? ? > ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?.?.?????????? ? ??? ???????????? > ???????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ????????. > From the fact that the theorist adheres to the left and progressive views > in politics does not automatically follow that his theoretical views are > true. And I'm ready to show an example of the same Vygotsky and his > favorite Marx's aphorism about the human anatomy and the anatomy of apes. > ???? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????????? ??? ???????? > ????????? ????????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? > ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? > ????????????? ??? ????????, ??????? (??????????) ??? ???????. ?? ???? ?? > ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ?? ???????????? ? ???????, > ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? > ????????, ?????????? ?????. > My first and fundamental reproach to the theorizing of LSV is reproach > methodological. Vygotsky undertakes to discuss the so-called "higher mental > functions" without having to worry about defining the functions "natural" > or "inferior", the psyche (zoopsyche) as such. That is, he does not ascend > from the abstract to the concrete. Not having understood a simple, abstract > basis, he proceeds to a theoretical analysis of the most developed, > concrete forms. > ? ??? ?? ????????? ??????????. ? ??????????? ??????, ????????? > ????????????? ?????? LSV ????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? > ?????????, ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????. ? ?????????, > ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? LSV ?? ????????. ????? > ???, ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? - ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? > ???? ????????????? > Moreover, this is not an accidental oversight. In support of his specific > method, which was strictly reverse of the Marxist one, Vygotsky refers to > ... the aphorism of Marx himself about "human anatomy", which is the key to > the "anatomy of ape". Unfortunately, nothing beyond this quote in support > of this method LSV did not leave us. Meanwhile, in order to overturn the > method of Marx - the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete - > one misunderstood quotation of Marx himself is clearly not enough ... > ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ? > ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? > ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ?????????. ????? ????, ???? > ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????, ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? > ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ? ????????????. > Let us note that Marx himself does not have a contradiction between his > "ascent" and his thought about the key role of the image of the whole for > understanding the development of this whole from its elementary, abstract > foundation. Moreover, one cannot be understood without the other, an > "anatomical" metaphor cannot be correctly understood outside the context of > "ascension from the abstract to the concrete." > ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???: ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?????, > ? ???? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ???????? > ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????.? ? > ???: ?? ??? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? > ?????? ????? ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????.? > In Marx, this idea sounds like this: "Human anatomy contains a key to the > anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the > subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the > higher development is already known. In addition: ??in the theoretical > method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the > presupposition?. > ???? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ? ???, ??? ???????? ????? ???? *??????* > ??????, ??? ????????. ??????, ????????, ?????????? ????? ???? ????????????? > ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ? ????? > ??????????. ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ????,? ??????? ? > ?????????? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, > ?? ? ???? ???????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????, > ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????. ? ? ???? ?????? > ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??????. > In any way, Marx does not affirm that "higher" can be understood earlier > than ?inferior? can. The higher, the developed, the concrete can be really > understood only if we could systematically theoretically reproduce the > origin and genesis of this concrete in the very reality itself. However, > this is possible only if, beginning with the ultimate abstraction, with the > famous "germ cell" we are moving not just anywhere, but to the concrete > one, which we actually want to understand, and so, in order not to lose our > way, we need an original compass. Moreover, the role of such a compass is > played by the image of a concrete whole, seized by an aesthetically and > morally developed imagination. > ???, ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????? ?? > ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ???, ??????? ?????????????? ? > ???????????? ???????, ??????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? > ????????? ???????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? > ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????????, ????? ??????????? > ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ???. ??, > ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???, ? ???? ???????. ? > ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????. ?????? ?? ?????? > ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????, ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????. > Therefore, if we want to understand the human consciousness, the human > psyche, we must first find an elementary abstraction, the one that really > exists, which in the process of its development necessarily generates human > consciousness. From our point of view, this phenomenon is the most > elementary living organism, reflecting the objective world that opposes it > with its vital activity. But, the developed human consciousness does not > arise in one step. Moreover, in order to understand in which direction to > move in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete one, one > must imagine a goal. It is about the image of this goal that Marx says, > referring to the notorious "human anatomy". > ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????????, > ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ????????????? > ????????, ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????, > ???? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? > ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? > ???????????????, ?? ??? ??????-?????????????? ???????. > Marx himself, moving from simple commodity exchange to surplus value, > profit and rent did not move anywhere, but along the vector of historical > development, the direction of which he guessed with the help of > Shakespeare, Moliere, Goethe and Balzac, for only an artistically and > morally developed imagination is capable of retaining the image > historically developed whole directly, before his scientific and > theoretical analysis. > ?????? ???, ? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ? > ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????. > Only in this way, in accordance with the method of Capital, moving from > the abstract to the concrete one can come to a scientific understanding of > the subject. > ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????, ?? ????? > ????????? ??????????????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? > ?????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? > ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ???????????, ?????????? ????????, ??? ? ?? > ??????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ???????????, ? ?????? > ??? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ?????????. > On the contrary, if we take a look at Vygotsky's theorizing, we will have > to admit that, contrary to his sincere desire to follow the old classic's > method, he was stuck in a more or less casual contemplation of empirically > concrete - speech, experiences, age crises, and without trying to grope for > their real path , historical formation, and thus never having risen to the > level of a theoretically concrete, level of scientifically true. > ?????????, ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, > ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ? ???????????????? ????????? > ????????????? ????????, ??, ? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ???????????? > ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????????? > ??? ???????????. > Vygotsky, like many of his colleagues, rightly noted that speech plays an > essential role in the functioning of the developed human consciousness, > but, unfortunately, they could not go beyond arbitrary fantasies about the > mysterious "interweaving" of it with an equally mysterious "thinking". > ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????????, ?????????????? ?????? > ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, ?? ????? > ?? ??????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ???? ????? > ?????? ????????? (? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????????), > ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ????????? ? > ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ????? ????????? > ?????????, ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ???????. > This example is especially characteristic, because rational, dialectical > logic consists not in describing individual random empirical phenomena, not > through their "generalization" and unproductive attempts to establish > between them certain special relations (in this case - the relationship of > the same "intertwining"), but in finding in the very nature of the thing of > its simple living foundation and tracing the path of self-discrimination > and differentiation of this universal basis, the generation of its opposite > organs. > ????????????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? > ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? (?????????? ????????????) ??????, > ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ????? ?????? > ????????????? ? ??????????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. > The specific "human anatomy", as a reference point, allowing to move in > the right direction from the initial abstraction of life (object-oriented > activity) in general, from the "anatomy of ape" is in a truly aesthetically > and morally grasped image of a free man and citizen, actively, with his > labor producing and reproducing life in all its forms and manifestations. > ????? ??????, ??? ??????, ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ??????????. ????????? ?????? > ???????. ??, ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ? > ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? > ?????????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????? > ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????, ? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? > (????????) ??????????? ???-?? ????????? ? ?????????????. ?? ???? ???? > ????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? > ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????-?? ????????? ????? ? > ?????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? > ???????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????, > ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? > ??????????? ????????????, ???????????? ?????. > ??????? ? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? > ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????? > ??????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??? ? ??????? ? ???????? > ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ????? ????. ?????????????? > ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, > ?? ??????? ex professo, ?? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???????? ???????????. > In other words, for Marx, Spinoza, and even Anaxagoras, the moral and > aesthetic ideal of man is a working man. To work is to think. Yes, of > course, there is a division of labor in human society and today concrete > human labor and instruments of this labor are divided among individuals so > that to an individual there is only an infinitesimal part of the > instruments of human activity, and therefore its very activity (thinking) > is somehow partial and one-sided. But it must be clearly understood that > any abstract theoretical activity receives confirmation of its dignity as > something true if and only if it was born as an integral part of practical > activity and then fled to the skies of high theoretical abstractions and is > able to return to sinful earth and become the principle of a new sensory > activity, the activity of a stroke. > Man is an active being, who first of all is opposed not by the obedient > matter of signs, which he can cut at his own will, but practically an > active being, which is opposed by the sensual world, which is disobedient > to his will, a world whose forms and laws a man has to reckon with if he > wants to live. Accordingly, the moral and aesthetic ideal for a Marxist is > not a specialist in the composition of crafty signs and in ingenious formal > handling of these signs, not an ideologist ex professo, but a man as a > worker, a man as an artist, and a man as a materialist theorist. > > ? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ?.?.?????????, ??? ???? > ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ???? ?????? > ???????? ? ????? ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????. ??? ?? ????????? > ????????????????? ?????? ? ?????, ??????????? ????????, ??? ????? ???????? > ????? ? ???????, ??? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????????, > ?? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????. ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? > ???????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???? ???????????? > ??????????, ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ? ????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? sine > qua non ?????????, ? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? > ???????? ??-???????? ? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ? > ?????????? ?? ??????? ????. > In the light of what has been said, we must state that LS Vygotsky, with > all his sincere assurances of his desire to follow in the footsteps of > Marx, moved at this point in the direction directly opposite from Marxism. > So he carefully contrasts tools and signs, emphasizing in every possible > way that between the tools of labor and signs, or "psychological tools," > there is only an analogy, but in no way an identity. That the "thinking" of > a person is only the operation with the data obtained by the individual in > the act of sense perception, which in itself has nothing to do with > object-oriented activity, and moreover, is a prerequisite, the condition of > sine qua non of the latter, and that the main, if not the only task of > thinking is essentially reduced to the so-called "generalization" of > sensory data and the appropriation of generic names for them. > ?? ????????? ????????, ???, ??????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? ?????????? > ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ? > ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????????, ??? > ?????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? > ??????? ?????, ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ????????????? ???????? (??? > ????????) ? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ???????????????? ?????. > But what has been said means that, contrary to the good wishes, a real > guide in the movement of the theory, the goal to which the theoretician > should move in the act of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, that > being whose "anatomy" was regarded as something supreme and ideal for > Vygotsky was not working man, but a typical ideologist with his universal > master key (or flail) in the form of a crafty word, a verbal ideological > sign. > ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???????? ?.?.?????????? ? ???? ????? ? > ?????-?? ?????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??? ?????, ??? ? ???? > ????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????. ????? > ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????? > ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????/????????? ? ??? > ?????????????, ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????. ?? ???? > ???????? ??????. > ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????? > ???????????????? ?.?.?????????, ??-??????, ?? ??? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????, ??? ??? ? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??? ???????, ? > ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ???????????? > ???? ????????????, ???????? ??????????? ???????, ????????, ????????????? > ???????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? > (????????). ?, ??-??????, ??? ????????? ????????, ????????? ?? ?????? > ??????????????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ??? > ? ??????? ????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? > ??????? ??????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ? > ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??, ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ?? > ????????????, ? ?? ??????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????????, ??? > ????????????? ??????????? ?.?.?????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ??????. > We are infinitely far from reproaching Vygotsky for this reason in some > bad moral and social attitudes. Moreover, in this very typical idealistic > scheme, he was not at all original. Exactly the same scheme for the > misleading unprepared reader of the title "Marxism and the philosophy of > language" left us Bakhtin / Voloshinov with his brilliant, self-revealing > term "ideological sign". But the facts are facts. > Calling things by their proper names, we must admit that in his theorizing > LS Vygotsky, first, did not go from the abstract to the concrete, for he > did not discern in the phenomenon of life as such, in the object-oriented > relation of the subject to the world, positing by his activity the realm of > his objectivity, the most abstract phenomenon, the development, the > concretization of which is nothing more than the development of human > activity, that is, the person with his consciousness ("psyche"). > And, secondly, his conception of thinking, proceeding from the purely > sensationalist notion that sensations are "given" to us by means of a > purely mechanical functioning of the so-called "sense organs", irrespective > of any kind of object-oriented activity, and thinking is only > "Generalization" and designation with the help of their signs, of course > infinitely far from both materialism and dialectics. In other words, we > have to state that the theoretical reflections of Vygotsky do not fit into > Marxist logic. > ? ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? > ????????? ? ???????, ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????? > ??????????????. ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????. > At this point, in the non-Marxism of Vygotsky, our conclusion at first > glance coincides with the thesis persistently propagated today by the > right-wing Vygotskians. But with an external coincidence, there is a > diametrically opposite reason behind a similar conclusion. > ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ????, ???, > ??-??????, ??? ? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? > ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????, ?, ??-??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ???? > ??????? ????, ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, > ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? > ??? ?????????. ????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????, > ????? ?? ????????? ??????????????. > The argument of the same Yasnitsky in this matter boils down to the fact > that, first, like the "all" Soviet theorists, Vygotsky was not, but only > had to pretend to be a Marxist, and secondly, that there was no big > trouble, for "Marxism" itself is an empty and unproductive ideology that > could only hinder the theorist, if he seriously tried to lean on it. The > weight of both these arguments, we will not even discuss, because of their > obvious inadequacy. > ????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? > ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? > ??????? ?????????????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? > ????????????? ???????, ? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? > ???????. ?????? ?????????????? ???? ? ????? ???????????? ????? ? > ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?.?.????????? ? ?.?.?????????, ???? > ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????? > ?????????? ????????????? ??????? (????????????) ??????. > On the contrary, in Vygotsky's failure to lay the foundation of Marxist > psychology, we see a real theoretical failure and see for it not some > external ideological reasons, but the unsettledness of some of the > fundamental theoretical problems, and above all the problem of an adequate, > materialistic understanding of Spinoza's ideas. The first real steps to the > new Marxist science of human consciousness happened to Leontiev and > Ilyenkov, although they did only the very first steps on this path and > bequeathed us the task of developing a truly scientific (Marxist) theory. > *??:* Andy Blunden > *????:* David Kellogg ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > *??????????:* ?????, 22 ?????? 2017 3:01 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one, > David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right > quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much > as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to > nostalgia at all. > > Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very > first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998 > that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a > colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did. > I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and > challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape" > aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out > that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking > that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in > some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes, > Marx was wrong." > > That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in > search of other introductory works, and I think it was then > that I found Lois Holzman. > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T. > > Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this > > passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a > > kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true > > in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism, > > the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning > > South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is > > a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think > > this passage says something very different: any language > > contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply > > that a language is reducible to a history or a history can > > be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's > > Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't > > mean that it is Homer for grown-ups. > > > > David > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > >? ? The aphorism was reproduced in > >? ? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/ > critique-pol-economy/index.htm > >? ? critique-pol-economy/index.htm> > >? ? , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859, > >? ? most of > >? ? which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse. > > > >? ? Andy > > > > > >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ > >? ? Andy Blunden > >? ? http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >? ? > >? ? On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > >? ? > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the > >? ? Crisis of Psychology, > >? ? > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about > >? ? human anatomy holding > >? ? > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this > >? ? elsewhere (in his > >? ? > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and > >? ? obviously finds it an > >? ? > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its > >? ? non-teleological > >? ? > character: he knows that saying that humans > >? ? developed from apes is not the > >? ? > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become > >? ? humans. > >? ? > > >? ? > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can > >? ? figure out, the Grundrisse > >? ? > wasn't published until 1939, five years after > >? ? Vygotsky's death. Did > >? ? > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some > >? ? other place where Marx > >? ? > says this that I don't know about? > >? ? > > >? ? > David Kellogg > >? ? > > >? ? > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Dec 3 21:56:14 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:56:14 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IFRoZSBBbmF0b215?= =?utf-8?q?_of_the_Ape?= In-Reply-To: <188307954.1140524.1512323080529@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9acab008-b9f5-bd11-4e0c-d851c26f48bc@mira.net> <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> <188307954.1140524.1512323080529@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My dear Sasha--I'm not sure if "absolutely wrong" is possible in dialectical logic. It seems to me that dialectically I can only ever be relatively wrong: that is, wrong relative to someone else who is right. And of course you are right that the discursus on art appears in a section about method in political economy, and the specific question that Marx is addressing is a scientific one: why art seems to have the power to outlast the relations of production that enable it, But surely what I said was that Marx was "mostly" talking about art and artists, so it is a little hard for me to see how this statement can be absolutely wrong. I also find it hard to understand why neither Marx nor Vygotsky have the right to pronounce on artistic matters. I think I am less convinced than you that political economy is a science "in the strictest sense of the word". Smith considered it a branch of morals, and belief in the "invisible hand" is little more than handwaving. Even Marx's critique of political economy was constantly undergoing revisions: I am currently reading the "Poverty of Philosophy" and I am struck by how many errors Marx made and had to correct by hand (in an edition he presented to a friend later in life). For example, he speaks of labour as a commodity, instead of stipulating that it is actually labour power and not actual humans who are being bought and sold. I wouldn't say the earlier formulation was absolutely wrong, though. When I read Thinking and Speech, I read it as an example of rising to the concrete. The first four chapters establish the starting point, which is a critique of extant theories of thinking and speech and fixing separate genetic roots for thinking and speech. The studies that follow are an example of empirical "rising to the concrete", and of course the final chapter is an attempt to establish a universal logogenetic sequence based on these studies and confirmed with every concrete act of thinking and every concrete act of speech. I think the History of the Higher Psychological Functions has pretty much the same structure: establishing higher psychological functioning as an abstract unit, and then employing it in concrete studies like arithmetic, writing, speech and thinking, followed by application to the universal problem of "self control" (volitional action). Similarly, the pedological works, although they are not consolidated in a monograph, begin by establishing the age period as an abstract unit and then undertaking age-period specific studies, followed by a concrete universal: personality formation. Isn't that what "rising to the concrete" is really about? David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full 2017-12-04 2:44 GMT+09:00 Alexander Surmava : > Dear Daviv! > > You assert that when Marx spoke of the anatomy of a man and the anatomy of > a monkey, he was mostly talking about artists, not philosophers or > scientists. I think that in this issue you are absolutely wrong. All this > reasoning is part of a chapter called "Method of Political Economy". But > the political economy of Marx is a science in the strictest sense of the > word. > However, if the aphorism about human anatomy relates only to art, then > Vygotsky has no right to refer to him, because he sees his task as a > theorist in the creation of scientific psychology, and not in artistic > beauties. > Anyway, all that is said does not cancel the fact that in his theory, > Vygotsky does not ascend from the abstract to the concrete, and hence his > method is not a method of Marxist. > By the way, Leontiev reproached Vygotsky for abandoning their COMMON plans > to begin research, starting from the invvestigation of the concept of > life. We believe that Leontiev did not quite succeed in realization of the > plan, but at least he tried to rise from the abstract to the concrete, from > the definition of life to definition of developed object oriented activity. > > Sasha > > > ------------------------------ > *??:* David Kellogg > *????:* > *?????:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *??????????:* ???????????, 3 ??????? 2017 4:13 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > When Marx talks about human anatomy being the key to the anatomy of the > ape, he is mostly talking about artists, not philosophers or scientists. > Yes, he does say that bourgeois society contains feudal (rent) and even > slave property relations (sexual harrassment on the job) within it, but the > reason why we cannot read off feudal and slave property relations from > their mature form in bourgeois society is simply that each society, > including bourgeois society, has a strong tendency to remake all previous > relations in its own image. So it is simply not the case that the ruins of > feudalism and of slave societies lie like living fossils somewhere in the > basement of the bourgeois citadel: although bourgeois society has abolished > all the estates, the rent market is still called "real estate" in English > (not: "unmoveable property", as in France), and unlike the > Ottomans, Belusconi, Dominique Strauss-Khan, and Donald Trump have to pay > their harems a wage. > > Marx says that some art impresses by its 'precocity" and other art by its > "backwardness", but that for us the Greeks were normal children. I suppose > everybody imagines that their own childhood was "normal", and everybody is > right, to the extent that the "norm" is taken to be the adult. This is why, > Marx says, we are impressed not by the slave elements of Greek art but by > the intimations of modernity in it. This is even true when we are > considering those classical elements that remind us of ourselves: we are > touched by this prelapsarian, pre-bourgeois view of our own culture, and we > feel a certain dishonest nostalgia for it. > > I think that the post-Romantic conceit that modern art is in some way > childlike or innocent is quite similar--and equally wrong. On the one > hand, seeiing Picasso or Pushkin or Nazim Hikmet as overgrown children is > unfair to their art; there is no significant sense in which Guernica or > Eugene Onegin or Hiroshima reflect a child sensibility, and to imagine that > a sophisticated political statement can somehow be articulated in the world > view of a child is to commit the fallacy of imagining the Greeks as "normal > children", destined to grow up as us). On the other hand, I think it is > also unfair to children. One of the most creative things any child is > called on to do is to master speech, and when children do this, they are > quite conscious that they can only succeed by struggling against their lack > of experience, their lack of memory, and consequently their own > (involuntary) creativity and (non-volitional) imagination. Of course, > volitional creativity and and voluntary imagination play an enormous role > here, but no child is trying to create or imagine their own language. > > David Kellogg > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > 2017-11-29 22:41 GMT+09:00 Alexander Surmava >: > > > > > > > ??????? ????! > > ????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? > > ??????????????????? ???????? ? CHAT ???? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? > > ?????????. > > ?? ????????? ISCAR ? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ? > > ??????????? ? ???? ? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? > ????? > > ???????? ????? ???????, ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ????? ?????????, ??? > > ??, ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? > > ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? > ??? > > ???????????. J > > Dear Andy! > > It's funny, but for the first time I came across a specific approach to > > CHAT, characteristic of the right Vygotskians thanks to the same Jan > > Valsiner. > > At the ISCAR Congress in Rome, I made a report "Ilyenkov and the > > Revolution in Psychology" in his symposium. And Jan so much did not like > > the title of my report, and especially the mention of the word Revolution > > in it, that he, forgetting about elementary academic politeness, > > accompanied my report with the most venomous and sarcastic remarks, > > effectively disrupting my speech. > > ??? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ??????????????. > > ??????????, ???????? ??????????, ???? ????? ????????, ????? ????????? ? ? > > ??????. ??, ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? > ? > > ????????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???, ??? ?????????? ?????? > > ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? > ???????? > > ? ??????????, ? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????? > > ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ????????????, ?? ??ognitive > > science?. ??????? ?????? ???????????? ? ????? ? ?????? ??????. ?? ?????, > > ??????, ?? ???????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????. ??? > ??????? > > ? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????? ???-??, ??????? ?? ?????? > > ????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? > ? > > ?????????? ???? ? ??? ????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? > > ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ??????? ? > ?????? > > ? ???????? ????????? ? ??? ??????. > > Of course, such characters, if you try, you can meet in Moscow too. But, > > considering the very low interest of Russian psychologists in the > domestic > > theoretical psychology, those who profess the right political views > prefer > > to completely discard the theoretical legacy of both Vygotsky and > Leontyev > > as Soviet ideological garbage and engage in retelling fashionable Western > > concepts from psychoanalysis to ??ognitive science?. Therefore, the right > > Vygotskians in Russia are extremely rare. It does not follow from this > that > > Russia is filled with the Left Vygotskians. For leftism in the Russian > > academic community is considered something that lies beyond the bounds of > > decency. Therefore, most often consider themselves to Vygotsky's school > > researchers without any political position, anxious primarily to get in > > unison with Western interest in his figure. > > ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???????????? ??? ????????? > > ? ????????? ? ? ?????????, ?? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????, > ??? > > ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ? ?????? > > ????????????? ????????. > > The sarcasm of the Estonian colleague did not prompt me, too, to > > reconsider my attitude to the revolution and to Marxism, but provided > > additional proof that a false political position very often goes hand in > > hand with a false theoretical position. > > ???????, ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????. ????? > > ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? > > ??????? ? ???????????. > > However, here it is necessary to make a fundamental clarification. The > > connection between political sympathies and antipathies with scientific > > views is far from simple and unambiguous. > > ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?????????????? ????? ? ????????????? ???????? ? > > ???????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ????????????? ??????? ???????. ? ??? > ? > > ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?.?.?????????? ? ??? ???????????? > > ???????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ????????. > > From the fact that the theorist adheres to the left and progressive views > > in politics does not automatically follow that his theoretical views are > > true. And I'm ready to show an example of the same Vygotsky and his > > favorite Marx's aphorism about the human anatomy and the anatomy of apes. > > ???? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????????? ??? ???????? > > ????????? ????????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? > > ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? > > ????????????? ??? ????????, ??????? (??????????) ??? ???????. ?? ???? ?? > > ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ?? ???????????? ? ???????, > > ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? > > ????????, ?????????? ?????. > > My first and fundamental reproach to the theorizing of LSV is reproach > > methodological. Vygotsky undertakes to discuss the so-called "higher > mental > > functions" without having to worry about defining the functions "natural" > > or "inferior", the psyche (zoopsyche) as such. That is, he does not > ascend > > from the abstract to the concrete. Not having understood a simple, > abstract > > basis, he proceeds to a theoretical analysis of the most developed, > > concrete forms. > > ? ??? ?? ????????? ??????????. ? ??????????? ??????, ????????? > > ????????????? ?????? LSV ????????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? > ????????? > > ?????????, ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????. ? ?????????, > > ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? LSV ?? ????????. > ????? > > ???, ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? > > ???????????? ? ??????????? - ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? > > ???? ????????????? > > Moreover, this is not an accidental oversight. In support of his specific > > method, which was strictly reverse of the Marxist one, Vygotsky refers to > > ... the aphorism of Marx himself about "human anatomy", which is the key > to > > the "anatomy of ape". Unfortunately, nothing beyond this quote in support > > of this method LSV did not leave us. Meanwhile, in order to overturn the > > method of Marx - the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete - > > one misunderstood quotation of Marx himself is clearly not enough ... > > ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ? > > ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? > > ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ?????????. ????? ????, > ???? > > ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????, ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? > > ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ? > ????????????. > > Let us note that Marx himself does not have a contradiction between his > > "ascent" and his thought about the key role of the image of the whole for > > understanding the development of this whole from its elementary, abstract > > foundation. Moreover, one cannot be understood without the other, an > > "anatomical" metaphor cannot be correctly understood outside the context > of > > "ascension from the abstract to the concrete." > > ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???: ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?????, > > ? ???? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ???????? > > ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????. ? > > ???: ?? ??? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? > > ?????? ????? ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????.? > > In Marx, this idea sounds like this: "Human anatomy contains a key to the > > anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the > > subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the > > higher development is already known. In addition: ??in the theoretical > > method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the > > presupposition?. > > ???? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ? ???, ??? ???????? ????? ???? *??????* > > ??????, ??? ????????. ??????, ????????, ?????????? ????? ???? > ????????????? > > ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? > > ????????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ? ????? > > ??????????. ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ????, ??????? ? > > ?????????? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? > ??????, > > ?? ? ???? ???????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????, > > ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????. ? ? ???? > ?????? > > ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > > ???????????? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??????. > > In any way, Marx does not affirm that "higher" can be understood earlier > > than ?inferior? can. The higher, the developed, the concrete can be > really > > understood only if we could systematically theoretically reproduce the > > origin and genesis of this concrete in the very reality itself. However, > > this is possible only if, beginning with the ultimate abstraction, with > the > > famous "germ cell" we are moving not just anywhere, but to the concrete > > one, which we actually want to understand, and so, in order not to lose > our > > way, we need an original compass. Moreover, the role of such a compass is > > played by the image of a concrete whole, seized by an aesthetically and > > morally developed imagination. > > ???, ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????? ?? > > ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ???, ??????? > ?????????????? ? > > ???????????? ???????, ??????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? > > ????????? ???????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? > > ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????????, ????? ??????????? > > ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ???. ??, > > ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???, ? ???? ???????. ? > > ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? > > ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????. ?????? ?? ?????? > > ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????, ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????. > > Therefore, if we want to understand the human consciousness, the human > > psyche, we must first find an elementary abstraction, the one that really > > exists, which in the process of its development necessarily generates > human > > consciousness. From our point of view, this phenomenon is the most > > elementary living organism, reflecting the objective world that opposes > it > > with its vital activity. But, the developed human consciousness does not > > arise in one step. Moreover, in order to understand in which direction to > > move in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete one, one > > must imagine a goal. It is about the image of this goal that Marx says, > > referring to the notorious "human anatomy". > > ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????????, > > ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ????????????? > > ????????, ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????, > > ???? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? > > ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? > > ???????????????, ?? ??? ??????-?????????????? ???????. > > Marx himself, moving from simple commodity exchange to surplus value, > > profit and rent did not move anywhere, but along the vector of historical > > development, the direction of which he guessed with the help of > > Shakespeare, Moliere, Goethe and Balzac, for only an artistically and > > morally developed imagination is capable of retaining the image > > historically developed whole directly, before his scientific and > > theoretical analysis. > > ?????? ???, ? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ? > > ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????. > > Only in this way, in accordance with the method of Capital, moving from > > the abstract to the concrete one can come to a scientific understanding > of > > the subject. > > ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????, ?? ????? > > ????????? ??????????????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? > > ?????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? > > ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ???????????, ?????????? ????????, ??? ? > ?? > > ??????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ???????????, ? > ?????? > > ??? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ?????????. > > On the contrary, if we take a look at Vygotsky's theorizing, we will have > > to admit that, contrary to his sincere desire to follow the old classic's > > method, he was stuck in a more or less casual contemplation of > empirically > > concrete - speech, experiences, age crises, and without trying to grope > for > > their real path , historical formation, and thus never having risen to > the > > level of a theoretically concrete, level of scientifically true. > > ?????????, ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, > > ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ? ???????????????? ????????? > > ????????????? ????????, ??, ? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ???????????? > > ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? > ?????????? > > ??? ???????????. > > Vygotsky, like many of his colleagues, rightly noted that speech plays an > > essential role in the functioning of the developed human consciousness, > > but, unfortunately, they could not go beyond arbitrary fantasies about > the > > mysterious "interweaving" of it with an equally mysterious "thinking". > > ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????????, ?????????????? > ?????? > > ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, ?? > ????? > > ?? ??????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ???? ????? > > ?????? ????????? (? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?? > ??????????????), > > ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? > ????????? ? > > ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ????? ????????? > > ?????????, ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ???????. > > This example is especially characteristic, because rational, dialectical > > logic consists not in describing individual random empirical phenomena, > not > > through their "generalization" and unproductive attempts to establish > > between them certain special relations (in this case - the relationship > of > > the same "intertwining"), but in finding in the very nature of the thing > of > > its simple living foundation and tracing the path of self-discrimination > > and differentiation of this universal basis, the generation of its > opposite > > organs. > > ????????????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? > > ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? (?????????? ????????????) > ??????, > > ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > > ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ????? > ?????? > > ????????????? ? ??????????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. > > The specific "human anatomy", as a reference point, allowing to move in > > the right direction from the initial abstraction of life (object-oriented > > activity) in general, from the "anatomy of ape" is in a truly > aesthetically > > and morally grasped image of a free man and citizen, actively, with his > > labor producing and reproducing life in all its forms and manifestations. > > ????? ??????, ??? ??????, ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ? > > ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ??????????. ????????? ?????? > > ???????. ??, ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? > ????? ? > > ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? > > ?????????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????? > > ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????, ? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? > > (????????) ??????????? ???-?? ????????? ? ?????????????. ?? ???? ???? > > ????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? > > ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????-?? ????????? ????? ? > > ?????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? > > ???????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????, > > ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? > > ??????????? ????????????, ???????????? ?????. > > ??????? ? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?? > > ????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? > > ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????? > > ??????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??? ? ??????? ? ???????? > > ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ????? ????. ?????????????? > > ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? > ?? > > ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, > > ?? ??????? ex professo, ?? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???????? ???????????. > > In other words, for Marx, Spinoza, and even Anaxagoras, the moral and > > aesthetic ideal of man is a working man. To work is to think. Yes, of > > course, there is a division of labor in human society and today concrete > > human labor and instruments of this labor are divided among individuals > so > > that to an individual there is only an infinitesimal part of the > > instruments of human activity, and therefore its very activity (thinking) > > is somehow partial and one-sided. But it must be clearly understood that > > any abstract theoretical activity receives confirmation of its dignity as > > something true if and only if it was born as an integral part of > practical > > activity and then fled to the skies of high theoretical abstractions and > is > > able to return to sinful earth and become the principle of a new sensory > > activity, the activity of a stroke. > > Man is an active being, who first of all is opposed not by the obedient > > matter of signs, which he can cut at his own will, but practically an > > active being, which is opposed by the sensual world, which is disobedient > > to his will, a world whose forms and laws a man has to reckon with if he > > wants to live. Accordingly, the moral and aesthetic ideal for a Marxist > is > > not a specialist in the composition of crafty signs and in ingenious > formal > > handling of these signs, not an ideologist ex professo, but a man as a > > worker, a man as an artist, and a man as a materialist theorist. > > > > ? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ?.?.?????????, ??? ???? > > ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ???? > ?????? > > ???????? ? ????? ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????. ??? ?? ????????? > > ????????????????? ?????? ? ?????, ??????????? ????????, ??? ????? > ???????? > > ????? ? ???????, ??? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? > ????????, > > ?? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????. ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? > > ???????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???? ???????????? > > ??????????, ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ? > ??????????? > > ???????????? ? ????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? > sine > > qua non ?????????, ? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? > > ???????? ??-???????? ? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ? > > ?????????? ?? ??????? ????. > > In the light of what has been said, we must state that LS Vygotsky, with > > all his sincere assurances of his desire to follow in the footsteps of > > Marx, moved at this point in the direction directly opposite from > Marxism. > > So he carefully contrasts tools and signs, emphasizing in every possible > > way that between the tools of labor and signs, or "psychological tools," > > there is only an analogy, but in no way an identity. That the "thinking" > of > > a person is only the operation with the data obtained by the individual > in > > the act of sense perception, which in itself has nothing to do with > > object-oriented activity, and moreover, is a prerequisite, the condition > of > > sine qua non of the latter, and that the main, if not the only task of > > thinking is essentially reduced to the so-called "generalization" of > > sensory data and the appropriation of generic names for them. > > ?? ????????? ????????, ???, ??????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? > ?????????? > > ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ? > > ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????????, ??? > > ?????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??? > ?? > > ??????? ?????, ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ????????????? ???????? (??? > > ????????) ? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ??????????????? ?????. > > But what has been said means that, contrary to the good wishes, a real > > guide in the movement of the theory, the goal to which the theoretician > > should move in the act of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, > that > > being whose "anatomy" was regarded as something supreme and ideal for > > Vygotsky was not working man, but a typical ideologist with his universal > > master key (or flail) in the form of a crafty word, a verbal ideological > > sign. > > ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???????? ?.?.?????????? ? ???? ????? > ? > > ?????-?? ?????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??? ?????, ??? ? > ???? > > ????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????. ????? > > ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????? > > ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????/????????? ? ??? > > ?????????????, ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????. ?? > ???? > > ???????? ??????. > > ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????? > > ???????????????? ?.?.?????????, ??-??????, ?? ??? ?? ???????????? ? > > ???????????, ??? ??? ? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??? ???????, ? > > ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ???????????? > > ???? ????????????, ???????? ??????????? ???????, ????????, ????????????? > > ???????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? > > (????????). ?, ??-??????, ??? ????????? ????????, ????????? ?? ?????? > > ??????????????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ??????????? ???????? ???????? > ??? > > ? ??????? ????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? > > ??????? ??????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ? > > ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??, ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? > ?? > > ????????????, ? ?? ??????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????????, > ??? > > ????????????? ??????????? ?.?.?????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ? > > ???????????? ??????. > > We are infinitely far from reproaching Vygotsky for this reason in some > > bad moral and social attitudes. Moreover, in this very typical idealistic > > scheme, he was not at all original. Exactly the same scheme for the > > misleading unprepared reader of the title "Marxism and the philosophy of > > language" left us Bakhtin / Voloshinov with his brilliant, self-revealing > > term "ideological sign". But the facts are facts. > > Calling things by their proper names, we must admit that in his > theorizing > > LS Vygotsky, first, did not go from the abstract to the concrete, for he > > did not discern in the phenomenon of life as such, in the object-oriented > > relation of the subject to the world, positing by his activity the realm > of > > his objectivity, the most abstract phenomenon, the development, the > > concretization of which is nothing more than the development of human > > activity, that is, the person with his consciousness ("psyche"). > > And, secondly, his conception of thinking, proceeding from the purely > > sensationalist notion that sensations are "given" to us by means of a > > purely mechanical functioning of the so-called "sense organs", > irrespective > > of any kind of object-oriented activity, and thinking is only > > "Generalization" and designation with the help of their signs, of course > > infinitely far from both materialism and dialectics. In other words, we > > have to state that the theoretical reflections of Vygotsky do not fit > into > > Marxist logic. > > ? ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? > > ????????? ? ???????, ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????? > > ??????????????. ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? > > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????. > > At this point, in the non-Marxism of Vygotsky, our conclusion at first > > glance coincides with the thesis persistently propagated today by the > > right-wing Vygotskians. But with an external coincidence, there is a > > diametrically opposite reason behind a similar conclusion. > > ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ????, ???, > > ??-??????, ??? ? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???, ?? ????? > ???? > > ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????, ?, ??-??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ???? > > ??????? ????, ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, > > ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? > > ??? ?????????. ????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? > ?????????, > > ????? ?? ????????? ??????????????. > > The argument of the same Yasnitsky in this matter boils down to the fact > > that, first, like the "all" Soviet theorists, Vygotsky was not, but only > > had to pretend to be a Marxist, and secondly, that there was no big > > trouble, for "Marxism" itself is an empty and unproductive ideology that > > could only hinder the theorist, if he seriously tried to lean on it. The > > weight of both these arguments, we will not even discuss, because of > their > > obvious inadequacy. > > ????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? > ?? > > ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? > > ??????? ?????????????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? > > ????????????? ???????, ? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? > > ???????. ?????? ?????????????? ???? ? ????? ???????????? ????? ? > > ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?.?.????????? ? ?.?.?????????, > ???? > > ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????? > > ?????????? ????????????? ??????? (????????????) ??????. > > On the contrary, in Vygotsky's failure to lay the foundation of Marxist > > psychology, we see a real theoretical failure and see for it not some > > external ideological reasons, but the unsettledness of some of the > > fundamental theoretical problems, and above all the problem of an > adequate, > > materialistic understanding of Spinoza's ideas. The first real steps to > the > > new Marxist science of human consciousness happened to Leontiev and > > Ilyenkov, although they did only the very first steps on this path and > > bequeathed us the task of developing a truly scientific (Marxist) theory. > > *??:* Andy Blunden > > *????:* David Kellogg ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity" > > *??????????:* ?????, 22 ?????? 2017 3:01 > > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > > > Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one, > > David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right > > quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much > > as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to > > nostalgia at all. > > > > Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very > > first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998 > > that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a > > colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did. > > I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and > > challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape" > > aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out > > that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking > > that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in > > some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes, > > Marx was wrong." > > > > That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in > > search of other introductory works, and I think it was then > > that I found Lois Holzman. > > > > Andy > > > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T. > > > Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this > > > passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a > > > kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true > > > in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism, > > > the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning > > > South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is > > > a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think > > > this passage says something very different: any language > > > contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply > > > that a language is reducible to a history or a history can > > > be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's > > > Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't > > > mean that it is Homer for grown-ups. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The aphorism was reproduced in > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/ > > critique-pol-economy/index.htm > > > > critique-pol-economy/index.htm> > > > , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859, > > > most of > > > which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the > > > Crisis of Psychology, > > > > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about > > > human anatomy holding > > > > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this > > > elsewhere (in his > > > > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and > > > obviously finds it an > > > > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its > > > non-teleological > > > > character: he knows that saying that humans > > > developed from apes is not the > > > > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become > > > humans. > > > > > > > > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can > > > figure out, the Grundrisse > > > > wasn't published until 1939, five years after > > > Vygotsky's death. Did > > > > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some > > > other place where Marx > > > > says this that I don't know about? > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 6 16:36:02 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:36:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6IFRoZSBBbmF0b215IG9mIHRoZSBBcGU=?= In-Reply-To: <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9acab008-b9f5-bd11-4e0c-d851c26f48bc@mira.net>, <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1512606962799.66721@iped.uio.no> Dear Sasha, once again you have managed to elaborate a very refined and well thought argument supporting your critique to Vygotsky, with which I agree on several aspects, while maintaining a prudential, more reflective stance on other aspects until I grow better informed. From this latter stance, I sympathise with David K's last response, where he problematises the idea of being "absolutely wrong" (and by extension also "absolutely right"), and I would maintain the same stance towards Vygotsky, even if I agree with many of the aspects that you critique: I refuse at first to admit that, having failed to correctly identify the most basic unit of organic life to latter ascend to the concrete, Vygotsky was absolutely wrong in everything he wrote or thought. Just as Marx, as David's mention also entertains, could not possibly have been absolutely right. And a brief not on your mention to Yasnitsky's view on Vygotsky's Marxism as being somehow "pretended". I read in one of his (and van der Veer's) most recent publications that he does not dismisses Marxism or assumes Vygotsky was just somehow "pretending", but rather speaks about "Vygotsky's and Luria's vulgar marxist simplistic interpretation" (in the 2015 volume "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies"). Not that Yasnitsky is claiming they should have been more Marxists, though. In the hope to keep the discussion alive, and convinced that critiques like this one should be most welcome and seen as real opportunities for vygotskians and non-vygotskians to continue advancing our field, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alexander Surmava Sent: 29 November 2017 14:41 To: ablunden@mira.net; David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Mike Cole; Martin John Packer; Alexander Simakin; Alexander Surmava Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: The Anatomy of the Ape | ??????? ????! ????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? ??????????????????? ???????? ? CHAT ???? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????????. ?? ????????? ISCAR ? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ? ??????????? ? ???? ? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ???????, ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ????? ?????????, ??? ??, ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? ??? ???????????. J | Dear Andy! It's funny, but for the first time I came across a specific approach to CHAT, characteristic of the right Vygotskians thanks to the same Jan Valsiner. At the ISCAR Congress in Rome, I made a report "Ilyenkov and the Revolution in Psychology" in his symposium. And Jan so much did not like the title of my report, and especially the mention of the word Revolution in it, that he, forgetting about elementary academic politeness, accompanied my report with the most venomous and sarcastic remarks, effectively disrupting my speech. | | ??? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ??????????????. ??????????, ???????? ??????????, ???? ????? ????????, ????? ????????? ? ? ??????. ??, ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???, ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ????????????, ?? ??ognitive science?. ??????? ?????? ???????????? ? ????? ? ?????? ??????. ?? ?????, ??????, ?? ???????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????. ??? ??????? ? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????? ???-??, ??????? ?? ?????? ????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ???? ? ??? ????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ? ??? ??????. | Of course, such characters, if you try, you can meet in Moscow too. But, considering the very low interest of Russian psychologists in the domestic theoretical psychology, those who profess the right political views prefer to completely discard the theoretical legacy of both Vygotsky and Leontyev as Soviet ideological garbage and engage in retelling fashionable Western concepts from psychoanalysis to ??ognitive science?. Therefore, the right Vygotskians in Russia are extremely rare. It does not follow from this that Russia is filled with the Left Vygotskians. For leftism in the Russian academic community is considered something that lies beyond the bounds of decency. Therefore, most often consider themselves to Vygotsky's school researchers without any political position, anxious primarily to get in unison with Western interest in his figure. | | ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???????????? ??? ????????? ? ????????? ? ? ?????????, ?? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????, ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ? ?????? ????????????? ????????. | The sarcasm of the Estonian colleague did not prompt me, too, to reconsider my attitude to the revolution and to Marxism, but provided additional proof that a false political position very often goes hand in hand with a false theoretical position. | | ???????, ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????. ????? ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ? ???????????. | However, here it is necessary to make a fundamental clarification. The connection between political sympathies and antipathies with scientific views is far from simple and unambiguous. | | ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?????????????? ????? ? ????????????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ????????????? ??????? ???????. ? ??? ? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?.?.?????????? ? ??? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ????????. | From the fact that the theorist adheres to the left and progressive views in politics does not automatically follow that his theoretical views are true. And I'm ready to show an example of the same Vygotsky and his favorite Marx's aphorism about the human anatomy and the anatomy of apes. | | ???? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ????????, ??????? (??????????) ??? ???????. ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ?? ???????????? ? ???????, ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ????????, ?????????? ?????. | My first and fundamental reproach to the theorizing of LSV is reproach methodological. Vygotsky undertakes to discuss the so-called "higher mental functions" without having to worry about defining the functions "natural" or "inferior", the psyche (zoopsyche) as such. That is, he does not ascend from the abstract to the concrete. Not having understood a simple, abstract basis, he proceeds to a theoretical analysis of the most developed, concrete forms. | | ? ??? ?? ????????? ??????????. ? ??????????? ??????, ????????? ????????????? ?????? LSV ????????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????????, ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????. ? ?????????, ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? LSV ?? ????????. ????? ???, ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ??????????? - ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????????? | Moreover, this is not an accidental oversight. In support of his specific method, which was strictly reverse of the Marxist one, Vygotsky refers to ... the aphorism of Marx himself about "human anatomy", which is the key to the "anatomy of ape". Unfortunately, nothing beyond this quote in support of this method LSV did not leave us. Meanwhile, in order to overturn the method of Marx - the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete - one misunderstood quotation of Marx himself is clearly not enough ... | | ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ?????????. ????? ????, ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????, ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ? ????????????. | Let us note that Marx himself does not have a contradiction between his "ascent" and his thought about the key role of the image of the whole for understanding the development of this whole from its elementary, abstract foundation. Moreover, one cannot be understood without the other, an "anatomical" metaphor cannot be correctly understood outside the context of "ascension from the abstract to the concrete." | | ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???: ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?????, ? ???? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????. ? ???: ?? ??? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????.? | In Marx, this idea sounds like this: "Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the higher development is already known. In addition: ??in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition?. | | ???? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ? ???, ??? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??? ????????. ??????, ????????, ?????????? ????? ???? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????. ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ????, ??????? ? ?????????? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ? ???? ???????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????. ? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??????. | In any way, Marx does not affirm that "higher" can be understood earlier than ?inferior? can. The higher, the developed, the concrete can be really understood only if we could systematically theoretically reproduce the origin and genesis of this concrete in the very reality itself. However, this is possible only if, beginning with the ultimate abstraction, with the famous "germ cell" we are moving not just anywhere, but to the concrete one, which we actually want to understand, and so, in order not to lose our way, we need an original compass. Moreover, the role of such a compass is played by the image of a concrete whole, seized by an aesthetically and morally developed imagination. | | ???, ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ???, ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????????, ????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ???. ??, ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???, ? ???? ???????. ? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????. ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????, ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????. | Therefore, if we want to understand the human consciousness, the human psyche, we must first find an elementary abstraction, the one that really exists, which in the process of its development necessarily generates human consciousness. From our point of view, this phenomenon is the most elementary living organism, reflecting the objective world that opposes it with its vital activity. But, the developed human consciousness does not arise in one step. Moreover, in order to understand in which direction to move in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete one, one must imagine a goal. It is about the image of this goal that Marx says, referring to the notorious "human anatomy". | | ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????????, ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ????????????? ????????, ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????, ???? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????????, ?? ??? ??????-?????????????? ???????. | Marx himself, moving from simple commodity exchange to surplus value, profit and rent did not move anywhere, but along the vector of historical development, the direction of which he guessed with the help of Shakespeare, Moliere, Goethe and Balzac, for only an artistically and morally developed imagination is capable of retaining the image historically developed whole directly, before his scientific and theoretical analysis. | | ?????? ???, ? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????. | Only in this way, in accordance with the method of Capital, moving from the abstract to the concrete one can come to a scientific understanding of the subject. | | ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????, ?? ????? ????????? ??????????????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ???????????, ?????????? ????????, ??? ? ?? ??????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ???????????, ? ?????? ??? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ?????????. | On the contrary, if we take a look at Vygotsky's theorizing, we will have to admit that, contrary to his sincere desire to follow the old classic's method, he was stuck in a more or less casual contemplation of empirically concrete - speech, experiences, age crises, and without trying to grope for their real path , historical formation, and thus never having risen to the level of a theoretically concrete, level of scientifically true. | | ?????????, ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ? ???????????????? ????????? ????????????? ????????, ??, ? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???????????. | Vygotsky, like many of his colleagues, rightly noted that speech plays an essential role in the functioning of the developed human consciousness, but, unfortunately, they could not go beyond arbitrary fantasies about the mysterious "interweaving" of it with an equally mysterious "thinking". | | ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????????, ?????????????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, ?? ????? ?? ??????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? (? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????????), ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ????? ????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ???????. | This example is especially characteristic, because rational, dialectical logic consists not in describing individual random empirical phenomena, not through their "generalization" and unproductive attempts to establish between them certain special relations (in this case - the relationship of the same "intertwining"), but in finding in the very nature of the thing of its simple living foundation and tracing the path of self-discrimination and differentiation of this universal basis, the generation of its opposite organs. | | ????????????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? (?????????? ????????????) ??????, ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ????? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. | The specific "human anatomy", as a reference point, allowing to move in the right direction from the initial abstraction of life (object-oriented activity) in general, from the "anatomy of ape" is in a truly aesthetically and morally grasped image of a free man and citizen, actively, with his labor producing and reproducing life in all its forms and manifestations. | | ????? ??????, ??? ??????, ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ? ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ??????????. ????????? ?????? ???????. ??, ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ? ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????, ? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? (????????) ??????????? ???-?? ????????? ? ?????????????. ?? ???? ???? ????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????-?? ????????? ????? ? ?????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????, ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????????? ?????. ??????? ? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??? ? ??????? ? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ????? ????. ?????????????? ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, ?? ??????? ex professo, ?? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???????? ???????????. | In other words, for Marx, Spinoza, and even Anaxagoras, the moral and aesthetic ideal of man is a working man. To work is to think. Yes, of course, there is a division of labor in human society and today concrete human labor and instruments of this labor are divided among individuals so that to an individual there is only an infinitesimal part of the instruments of human activity, and therefore its very activity (thinking) is somehow partial and one-sided. But it must be clearly understood that any abstract theoretical activity receives confirmation of its dignity as something true if and only if it was born as an integral part of practical activity and then fled to the skies of high theoretical abstractions and is able to return to sinful earth and become the principle of a new sensory activity, the activity of a stroke. Man is an active being, who first of all is opposed not by the obedient matter of signs, which he can cut at his own will, but practically an active being, which is opposed by the sensual world, which is disobedient to his will, a world whose forms and laws a man has to reckon with if he wants to live. Accordingly, the moral and aesthetic ideal for a Marxist is not a specialist in the composition of crafty signs and in ingenious formal handling of these signs, not an ideologist ex professo, but a man as a worker, a man as an artist, and a man as a materialist theorist. | | ? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ?.?.?????????, ??? ???? ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ???? ?????? ???????? ? ????? ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????. ??? ?? ????????? ????????????????? ?????? ? ?????, ??????????? ????????, ??? ????? ???????? ????? ? ???????, ??? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????. ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???? ???????????? ??????????, ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ? ????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? sine qua non ?????????, ? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??-???????? ? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????. | In the light of what has been said, we must state that LS Vygotsky, with all his sincere assurances of his desire to follow in the footsteps of Marx, moved at this point in the direction directly opposite from Marxism. So he carefully contrasts tools and signs, emphasizing in every possible way that between the tools of labor and signs, or "psychological tools," there is only an analogy, but in no way an identity. That the "thinking" of a person is only the operation with the data obtained by the individual in the act of sense perception, which in itself has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, and moreover, is a prerequisite, the condition of sine qua non of the latter, and that the main, if not the only task of thinking is essentially reduced to the so-called "generalization" of sensory data and the appropriation of generic names for them. | | ?? ????????? ????????, ???, ??????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? ?????????? ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????????, ??? ?????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????, ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ????????????? ???????? (??? ????????) ? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ??????????????? ?????. | But what has been said means that, contrary to the good wishes, a real guide in the movement of the theory, the goal to which the theoretician should move in the act of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, that being whose "anatomy" was regarded as something supreme and ideal for Vygotsky was not working man, but a typical ideologist with his universal master key (or flail) in the form of a crafty word, a verbal ideological sign. | | ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???????? ?.?.?????????? ? ???? ????? ? ?????-?? ?????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??? ?????, ??? ? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????. ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????/????????? ? ??? ?????????????, ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????. ?? ???? ???????? ??????. ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????? ???????????????? ?.?.?????????, ??-??????, ?? ??? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ??? ? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??? ???????, ? ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ???????????? ???? ????????????, ???????? ??????????? ???????, ????????, ????????????? ???????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? (????????). ?, ??-??????, ??? ????????? ????????, ????????? ?? ?????? ??????????????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ? ??????? ????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ??????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ? ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??, ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ?? ????????????, ? ?? ??????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ????????????? ??????????? ?.?.?????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????. | We are infinitely far from reproaching Vygotsky for this reason in some bad moral and social attitudes. Moreover, in this very typical idealistic scheme, he was not at all original. Exactly the same scheme for the misleading unprepared reader of the title "Marxism and the philosophy of language" left us Bakhtin / Voloshinov with his brilliant, self-revealing term "ideological sign". But the facts are facts. Calling things by their proper names, we must admit that in his theorizing LS Vygotsky, first, did not go from the abstract to the concrete, for he did not discern in the phenomenon of life as such, in the object-oriented relation of the subject to the world, positing by his activity the realm of his objectivity, the most abstract phenomenon, the development, the concretization of which is nothing more than the development of human activity, that is, the person with his consciousness ("psyche"). And, secondly, his conception of thinking, proceeding from the purely sensationalist notion that sensations are "given" to us by means of a purely mechanical functioning of the so-called "sense organs", irrespective of any kind of object-oriented activity, and thinking is only "Generalization" and designation with the help of their signs, of course infinitely far from both materialism and dialectics. In other words, we have to state that the theoretical reflections of Vygotsky do not fit into Marxist logic. | | ? ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ???????, ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????????. ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ???????????? ??????????????? ??????. | At this point, in the non-Marxism of Vygotsky, our conclusion at first glance coincides with the thesis persistently propagated today by the right-wing Vygotskians. But with an external coincidence, there is a diametrically opposite reason behind a similar conclusion. | | ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ????, ???, ??-??????, ??? ? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????, ?, ??-??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ????, ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ?????????. ????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????, ????? ?? ????????? ??????????????. | The argument of the same Yasnitsky in this matter boils down to the fact that, first, like the "all" Soviet theorists, Vygotsky was not, but only had to pretend to be a Marxist, and secondly, that there was no big trouble, for "Marxism" itself is an empty and unproductive ideology that could only hinder the theorist, if he seriously tried to lean on it. The weight of both these arguments, we will not even discuss, because of their obvious inadequacy. | | ????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?????????????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????? ???????, ? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ???????. ?????? ?????????????? ???? ? ????? ???????????? ????? ? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?.?.????????? ? ?.?.?????????, ???? ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????? (????????????) ??????. | On the contrary, in Vygotsky's failure to lay the foundation of Marxist psychology, we see a real theoretical failure and see for it not some external ideological reasons, but the unsettledness of some of the fundamental theoretical problems, and above all the problem of an adequate, materialistic understanding of Spinoza's ideas. The first real steps to the new Marxist science of human consciousness happened to Leontiev and Ilyenkov, although they did only the very first steps on this path and bequeathed us the task of developing a truly scientific (Marxist) theory. | ??: Andy Blunden ????: David Kellogg ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ?????, 22 ?????? 2017 3:01 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one, David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to nostalgia at all. Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998 that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did. I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape" aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes, Marx was wrong." That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in search of other introductory works, and I think it was then that I found Lois Holzman. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T. > Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this > passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a > kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true > in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism, > the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning > South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is > a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think > this passage says something very different: any language > contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply > that a language is reducible to a history or a history can > be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's > Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't > mean that it is Homer for grown-ups. > > David > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > The aphorism was reproduced in > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm > > , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859, > most of > which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the > Crisis of Psychology, > > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about > human anatomy holding > > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this > elsewhere (in his > > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and > obviously finds it an > > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its > non-teleological > > character: he knows that saying that humans > developed from apes is not the > > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become > humans. > > > > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can > figure out, the Grundrisse > > wasn't published until 1939, five years after > Vygotsky's death. Did > > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some > other place where Marx > > says this that I don't know about? > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 05:13:38 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:13:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogVGhlIEFuYXRvbXkgb2YgdGhlIEFwZQ==?= In-Reply-To: <1512606962799.66721@iped.uio.no> References: <9acab008-b9f5-bd11-4e0c-d851c26f48bc@mira.net> <783019302.8250525.1511962860922@mail.yahoo.com> <1512606962799.66721@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: This might be good timing to seek some elaboration from Sasha on what seems to be a systemic principle referred to as "dialectical negation of subsystems" in his paper "Life, Psyche, Consciousness" (wherein activity as the unit of organic life is elaborated). On p. 16, Sasha writes: "Thus we reveal a psychic or an animal type of vital activity where successive externally predmet directed activity of an organism is dialectically negated simultaneous predmet operation of its living sub-units, living organs related to each other with some morphogenetic or reflecsive relationships." This seems to pertain to Luria's recognition of "messaging" of organs within an afferent system within his formulation of (psychological) functional systems. And, on a broader theme, I think there is scope to consider the communication of organs as an alternative view of predmet directedness (or what I think of as active orientation) perhaps giving some leverage to Sasha's characterisation of activity theoretic and communication theoretic camps in (historical) soviet psychology) -- although I think this would pose a form of communication that would be alien to what many studying "communication" study... From a cybernetic (specifically 2nd order cybernetic) perspective, it is apparent that a self-reproducing system discerns in terms of its own mode of reproduction, which implicates a form of negation, however I am wondering whether Sasha has something more systemically or biologically inspired in mind. E.g. from Ilyenkov' "Dialectics of the Abstract & the Concrete" (a text I've yet to study): "When two chemical particles, previously apparently identical, are ?locked? into a molecule, the structure of each of them undergoes a certain change. Each of the two particles actually bound in the molecule has its own complement in the other one: at each moment they exchange the electrons of their outermost shell, this mutual exchange binding them into a single whole" So, here we are looking at the (continuing) exchange as that which sustains the system and which presumably pertains to the afferent field. Note that this narrative is also redolent of a dialogic reciprocity. More generally, this seems to entail a systemic reconciliation of activity with semiotics (or vice-versa), such as a correspondence between the articulation of syntax and action and Davydov's problem-orientated schooling as pragmatics established through predmat directedness. Best, Huw 2017-12-07 0:36 GMT+00:00 Alfredo Jornet Gil : > Dear Sasha, > > > once again you have managed to elaborate a very refined and well thought > argument supporting your critique to Vygotsky, with which I agree on > several aspects, while maintaining a prudential, more reflective stance on > other aspects until I grow better informed. From this latter stance, I > sympathise with David K's last response, where he problematises the idea of > being "absolutely wrong" (and by extension also "absolutely right"), and I > would maintain the same stance towards Vygotsky, even if I agree with many > of the aspects that you critique: I refuse at first to admit that, having > failed to correctly identify the most basic unit of organic life to latter > ascend to the concrete, Vygotsky was absolutely wrong in everything he > wrote or thought. Just as Marx, as David's mention also entertains, could > not possibly have been absolutely right. > > > And a brief not on your mention to Yasnitsky's view on Vygotsky's Marxism > as being somehow "pretended". I read in one of his (and van der Veer's) > most recent publications that he does not dismisses Marxism or assumes > Vygotsky was just somehow "pretending", but rather speaks about "Vygotsky's > and Luria's vulgar marxist simplistic interpretation" (in the 2015 volume > "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies"). Not that Yasnitsky is > claiming they should have been more Marxists, though. > > > In the hope to keep the discussion alive, and convinced that critiques > like this one should be most welcome and seen as real opportunities for > vygotskians and non-vygotskians to continue advancing our field, > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alexander Surmava > Sent: 29 November 2017 14:41 > To: ablunden@mira.net; David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; > eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; > Ivan Uemlianin; Mike Cole; Martin John Packer; Alexander Simakin; Alexander > Surmava > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > > > > | ??????? ????! > ????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? > ??????????????????? ???????? ? CHAT ???? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? > ?????????. > > ?? ????????? ISCAR ? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ? > ??????????? ? ???? ? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ????? > ???????? ????? ???????, ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ????? ?????????, ??? > ??, ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? > ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? ??? > ???????????. J > > | Dear Andy! > > It's funny, but for the first time I came across a specific approach to > CHAT, characteristic of the right Vygotskians thanks to the same Jan > Valsiner. > > At the ISCAR Congress in Rome, I made a report "Ilyenkov and the > Revolution in Psychology" in his symposium. And Jan so much did not like > the title of my report, and especially the mention of the word Revolution > in it, that he, forgetting about elementary academic politeness, > accompanied my report with the most venomous and sarcastic remarks, > effectively disrupting my speech. > > | > | ??? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ??????? > ??????????????. ??????????, ???????? ??????????, ???? ????? ????????, ????? > ????????? ? ? ??????. ??, ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? > ?????????? ? ????????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???, ??? > ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????? ??????????? > ????????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ? ????????? ??? ????????? > ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? > ????????????, ?? ??ognitive science?. ??????? ?????? ???????????? ? ????? ? > ?????? ??????. ?? ?????, ??????, ?? ???????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? > ??????????????. ??? ??????? ? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????? > ???-??, ??????? ?? ?????? ????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ? > ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ???? ? ??? ????? ????????????? > ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????? > ????? ???, ????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ? ??? ??????. > > | Of course, such characters, if you try, you can meet in Moscow too. > But, considering the very low interest of Russian psychologists in the > domestic theoretical psychology, those who profess the right political > views prefer to completely discard the theoretical legacy of both Vygotsky > and Leontyev as Soviet ideological garbage and engage in retelling > fashionable Western concepts from psychoanalysis to ??ognitive science?. > Therefore, the right Vygotskians in Russia are extremely rare. It does not > follow from this that Russia is filled with the Left Vygotskians. For > leftism in the Russian academic community is considered something that lies > beyond the bounds of decency. Therefore, most often consider themselves to > Vygotsky's school researchers without any political position, anxious > primarily to get in unison with Western interest in his figure. > > | > | ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???????????? ??? > ????????? ? ????????? ? ? ?????????, ?? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????? > ????, ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ? > ?????? ????????????? ????????. > > | The sarcasm of the Estonian colleague did not prompt me, too, to > reconsider my attitude to the revolution and to Marxism, but provided > additional proof that a false political position very often goes hand in > hand with a false theoretical position. > > | > | ???????, ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????. ????? > ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? > ??????? ? ???????????. > > | However, here it is necessary to make a fundamental clarification. > The connection between political sympathies and antipathies with scientific > views is far from simple and unambiguous. > > | > | ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?????????????? ????? ? ????????????? ???????? ? > ???????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ????????????? ??????? ???????. ? ??? ? > ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?.?.?????????? ? ??? ???????????? > ???????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ????????. > > | From the fact that the theorist adheres to the left and progressive > views in politics does not automatically follow that his theoretical views > are true. And I'm ready to show an example of the same Vygotsky and his > favorite Marx's aphorism about the human anatomy and the anatomy of apes. > > | > | ???? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????????? ??? ???????? > ????????? ????????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? > ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? > ????????????? ??? ????????, ??????? (??????????) ??? ???????. ?? ???? ?? > ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ?? ???????????? ? ???????, > ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? > ????????, ?????????? ?????. > > | My first and fundamental reproach to the theorizing of LSV is > reproach methodological. Vygotsky undertakes to discuss the so-called > "higher mental functions" without having to worry about defining the > functions "natural" or "inferior", the psyche (zoopsyche) as such. That is, > he does not ascend from the abstract to the concrete. Not having understood > a simple, abstract basis, he proceeds to a theoretical analysis of the most > developed, concrete forms. > > | > | ? ??? ?? ????????? ??????????. ? ??????????? ??????, ????????? > ????????????? ?????? LSV ????????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? > ?????????, ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????. ? ?????????, > ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? LSV ?? ????????. ????? > ???, ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? - ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? > ???? ????????????? > > | Moreover, this is not an accidental oversight. In support of his > specific method, which was strictly reverse of the Marxist one, Vygotsky > refers to ... the aphorism of Marx himself about "human anatomy", which is > the key to the "anatomy of ape". Unfortunately, nothing beyond this quote > in support of this method LSV did not leave us. Meanwhile, in order to > overturn the method of Marx - the method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete - one misunderstood quotation of Marx himself is clearly not > enough ... > > | > | ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????????????? > ? ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? > ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ?????????. ????? ????, ???? > ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????, ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? > ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ? ????????????. > > | Let us note that Marx himself does not have a contradiction between > his "ascent" and his thought about the key role of the image of the whole > for understanding the development of this whole from its elementary, > abstract foundation. Moreover, one cannot be understood without the other, > an "anatomical" metaphor cannot be correctly understood outside the context > of "ascension from the abstract to the concrete." > > | > | ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???: ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?????, ? > ???? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? > ???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????. ? ???: ?? > ??? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????? > ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????.? > > | In Marx, this idea sounds like this: "Human anatomy contains a key to > the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the > subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the > higher development is already known. In addition: ??in the theoretical > method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the > presupposition?. > > | > | ???? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ? ???, ??? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? > ??????, ??? ????????. ??????, ????????, ?????????? ????? ???? ????????????? > ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ? ????? > ??????????. ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ??? ??????, ????, ??????? ? > ?????????? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, > ?? ? ???? ???????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????, > ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????. ? ? ???? ?????? > ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??????. > > | In any way, Marx does not affirm that "higher" can be understood > earlier than ?inferior? can. The higher, the developed, the concrete can be > really understood only if we could systematically theoretically reproduce > the origin and genesis of this concrete in the very reality itself. > However, this is possible only if, beginning with the ultimate abstraction, > with the famous "germ cell" we are moving not just anywhere, but to the > concrete one, which we actually want to understand, and so, in order not to > lose our way, we need an original compass. Moreover, the role of such a > compass is played by the image of a concrete whole, seized by an > aesthetically and morally developed imagination. > > | > | ???, ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????? > ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????, ???, ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????? > ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ?????? ????? > ????????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????????, ????? ??????????? > ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ???. ??, > ???????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???, ? ???? ???????. ? > ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? > ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????. ?????? ?? ?????? > ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????, ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????. > > | Therefore, if we want to understand the human consciousness, the > human psyche, we must first find an elementary abstraction, the one that > really exists, which in the process of its development necessarily > generates human consciousness. From our point of view, this phenomenon is > the most elementary living organism, reflecting the objective world that > opposes it with its vital activity. But, the developed human consciousness > does not arise in one step. Moreover, in order to understand in which > direction to move in the process of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete one, one must imagine a goal. It is about the image of this goal > that Marx says, referring to the notorious "human anatomy". > > | > | ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? > ?????????, ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? > ????????????? ????????, ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? > ????????, ???????, ???? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ??????????? > ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? > ???????????????, ?? ??? ??????-?????????????? ???????. > > | Marx himself, moving from simple commodity exchange to surplus value, > profit and rent did not move anywhere, but along the vector of historical > development, the direction of which he guessed with the help of > Shakespeare, Moliere, Goethe and Balzac, for only an artistically and > morally developed imagination is capable of retaining the image > historically developed whole directly, before his scientific and > theoretical analysis. > > | > | ?????? ???, ? ???????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? > ? ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????. > > | Only in this way, in accordance with the method of Capital, moving > from the abstract to the concrete one can come to a scientific > understanding of the subject. > > | > | ????????, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????, ?? ????? > ????????? ??????????????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? > ?????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? > ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ???????????, ?????????? ????????, ??? ? ?? > ??????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ???????????, ? ?????? > ??? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ?????????. > > | On the contrary, if we take a look at Vygotsky's theorizing, we will > have to admit that, contrary to his sincere desire to follow the old > classic's method, he was stuck in a more or less casual contemplation of > empirically concrete - speech, experiences, age crises, and without trying > to grope for their real path , historical formation, and thus never having > risen to the level of a theoretically concrete, level of scientifically > true. > > | > | ?????????, ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, > ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ? ???????????????? ????????? > ????????????? ????????, ??, ? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ???????????? > ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? > ?????????? ??? ???????????. > > | Vygotsky, like many of his colleagues, rightly noted that speech > plays an essential role in the functioning of the developed human > consciousness, but, unfortunately, they could not go beyond arbitrary > fantasies about the mysterious "interweaving" of it with an equally > mysterious "thinking". > > | > | ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????????, ?????????????? > ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, > ?? ????? ?? ??????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ???? > ????? ?????? ????????? (? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?? > ??????????????), ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? > ?????? ????????? ? ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ????? > ????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ???????. > > | This example is especially characteristic, because rational, > dialectical logic consists not in describing individual random empirical > phenomena, not through their "generalization" and unproductive attempts to > establish between them certain special relations (in this case - the > relationship of the same "intertwining"), but in finding in the very nature > of the thing of its simple living foundation and tracing the path of > self-discrimination and differentiation of this universal basis, the > generation of its opposite organs. > > | > | ????????????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? > ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? (?????????? ????????????) ??????, > ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ? ??????????? > ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ????? ?????? > ????????????? ? ??????????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. > > | The specific "human anatomy", as a reference point, allowing to move > in the right direction from the initial abstraction of life > (object-oriented activity) in general, from the "anatomy of ape" is in a > truly aesthetically and morally grasped image of a free man and citizen, > actively, with his labor producing and reproducing life in all its forms > and manifestations. > > | > | ????? ??????, ??? ??????, ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ??????????. ????????? ?????? > ???????. ??, ???????, ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ? > ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? > ?????????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????? > ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????, ? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? > (????????) ??????????? ???-?? ????????? ? ?????????????. ?? ???? ???? > ????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? > ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????-?? ????????? ????? ? > ?????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? > ???????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????, > ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? > ??????????? ????????????, ???????????? ?????. > ??????? ? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? > ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????? > ??????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??? ? ??????? ? ???????? > ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ????? ????. ?????????????? > ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? > ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, > ?? ??????? ex professo, ?? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???????? ???????????. > > | In other words, for Marx, Spinoza, and even Anaxagoras, the moral and > aesthetic ideal of man is a working man. To work is to think. Yes, of > course, there is a division of labor in human society and today concrete > human labor and instruments of this labor are divided among individuals so > that to an individual there is only an infinitesimal part of the > instruments of human activity, and therefore its very activity (thinking) > is somehow partial and one-sided. But it must be clearly understood that > any abstract theoretical activity receives confirmation of its dignity as > something true if and only if it was born as an integral part of practical > activity and then fled to the skies of high theoretical abstractions and is > able to return to sinful earth and become the principle of a new sensory > activity, the activity of a stroke. > > Man is an active being, who first of all is opposed not by the obedient > matter of signs, which he can cut at his own will, but practically an > active being, which is opposed by the sensual world, which is disobedient > to his will, a world whose forms and laws a man has to reckon with if he > wants to live. Accordingly, the moral and aesthetic ideal for a Marxist is > not a specialist in the composition of crafty signs and in ingenious formal > handling of these signs, not an ideologist ex professo, but a man as a > worker, a man as an artist, and a man as a materialist theorist. > > | > | > > ? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????, ??? ?.?.?????????, ??? ???? > ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ???? ?????? > ???????? ? ????? ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????. ??? ?? ????????? > ????????????????? ?????? ? ?????, ??????????? ????????, ??? ????? ???????? > ????? ? ???????, ??? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????????, > ?? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????. ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? > ???????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???? ???????????? > ??????????, ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ? ??????????? > ???????????? ? ????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? sine > qua non ?????????, ? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? > ???????? ??-???????? ? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ? > ?????????? ?? ??????? ????. > > | In the light of what has been said, we must state that LS Vygotsky, > with all his sincere assurances of his desire to follow in the footsteps of > Marx, moved at this point in the direction directly opposite from Marxism. > So he carefully contrasts tools and signs, emphasizing in every possible > way that between the tools of labor and signs, or "psychological tools," > there is only an analogy, but in no way an identity. That the "thinking" of > a person is only the operation with the data obtained by the individual in > the act of sense perception, which in itself has nothing to do with > object-oriented activity, and moreover, is a prerequisite, the condition of > sine qua non of the latter, and that the main, if not the only task of > thinking is essentially reduced to the so-called "generalization" of > sensory data and the appropriation of generic names for them. > > | > | ?? ????????? ????????, ???, ??????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? > ?????????? ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ????????? > ????????? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????????, > ??? ?????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? > ??? ?? ??????? ?????, ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ????????????? ???????? (??? > ????????) ? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ??????????????? ?????. > > | But what has been said means that, contrary to the good wishes, a > real guide in the movement of the theory, the goal to which the > theoretician should move in the act of ascension from the abstract to the > concrete, that being whose "anatomy" was regarded as something supreme and > ideal for Vygotsky was not working man, but a typical ideologist with his > universal master key (or flail) in the form of a crafty word, a verbal > ideological sign. > > | > | ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???????? ?.?.?????????? ? ???? > ????? ? ?????-?? ?????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??? ?????, > ??? ? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? > ??????????. ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ??????????? > ????????????????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? > ??? ??????/????????? ? ??? ?????????????, ???????????????????? ???????? > ??????????????? ?????. ?? ???? ???????? ??????. > > ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????? > ???????????????? ?.?.?????????, ??-??????, ?? ??? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????, ??? ??? ? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ????? ??? ???????, ? > ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ???????????? > ???? ????????????, ???????? ??????????? ???????, ????????, ????????????? > ???????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? > (????????). ?, ??-??????, ??? ????????? ????????, ????????? ?? ?????? > ??????????????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ??? > ? ??????? ????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? > ??????? ??????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ? > ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??, ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ?? > ????????????, ? ?? ??????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????????, ??? > ????????????? ??????????? ?.?.?????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ? > ???????????? ??????. > > | We are infinitely far from reproaching Vygotsky for this reason in > some bad moral and social attitudes. Moreover, in this very typical > idealistic scheme, he was not at all original. Exactly the same scheme for > the misleading unprepared reader of the title "Marxism and the philosophy > of language" left us Bakhtin / Voloshinov with his brilliant, > self-revealing term "ideological sign". But the facts are facts. > > Calling things by their proper names, we must admit that in his > theorizing LS Vygotsky, first, did not go from the abstract to the > concrete, for he did not discern in the phenomenon of life as such, in the > object-oriented relation of the subject to the world, positing by his > activity the realm of his objectivity, the most abstract phenomenon, the > development, the concretization of which is nothing more than the > development of human activity, that is, the person with his consciousness > ("psyche"). > > And, secondly, his conception of thinking, proceeding from the purely > sensationalist notion that sensations are "given" to us by means of a > purely mechanical functioning of the so-called "sense organs", irrespective > of any kind of object-oriented activity, and thinking is only > "Generalization" and designation with the help of their signs, of course > infinitely far from both materialism and dialectics. In other words, we > have to state that the theoretical reflections of Vygotsky do not fit into > Marxist logic. > > | > | ? ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? > ????????? ? ???????, ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????? > ??????????????. ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????. > > | At this point, in the non-Marxism of Vygotsky, our conclusion at > first glance coincides with the thesis persistently propagated today by the > right-wing Vygotskians. But with an external coincidence, there is a > diametrically opposite reason behind a similar conclusion. > > | > | ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ????, ???, > ??-??????, ??? ? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? > ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????, ?, ??-??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ???? > ??????? ????, ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, > ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? > ??? ?????????. ????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????, > ????? ?? ????????? ??????????????. > > | The argument of the same Yasnitsky in this matter boils down to the > fact that, first, like the "all" Soviet theorists, Vygotsky was not, but > only had to pretend to be a Marxist, and secondly, that there was no big > trouble, for "Marxism" itself is an empty and unproductive ideology that > could only hinder the theorist, if he seriously tried to lean on it. The > weight of both these arguments, we will not even discuss, because of their > obvious inadequacy. > > | > | ????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? > ?? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? > ??????? ?????????????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? > ????????????? ???????, ? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? > ???????. ?????? ?????????????? ???? ? ????? ???????????? ????? ? > ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?.?.????????? ? ?.?.?????????, ???? > ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ??? ?????? > ?????????? ????????????? ??????? (????????????) ??????. > > | On the contrary, in Vygotsky's failure to lay the foundation of > Marxist psychology, we see a real theoretical failure and see for it not > some external ideological reasons, but the unsettledness of some of the > fundamental theoretical problems, and above all the problem of an adequate, > materialistic understanding of Spinoza's ideas. The first real steps to the > new Marxist science of human consciousness happened to Leontiev and > Ilyenkov, although they did only the very first steps on this path and > bequeathed us the task of developing a truly scientific (Marxist) theory. > > | > > ??: Andy Blunden > ????: David Kellogg ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > ??????????: ?????, 22 ?????? 2017 3:01 > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape > > Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one, > David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right > quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much > as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to > nostalgia at all. > > Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very > first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998 > that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a > colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did. > I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and > challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape" > aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out > that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking > that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in > some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes, > Marx was wrong." > > That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in > search of other introductory works, and I think it was then > that I found Lois Holzman. > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T. > > Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this > > passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a > > kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true > > in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism, > > the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning > > South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is > > a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think > > this passage says something very different: any language > > contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply > > that a language is reducible to a history or a history can > > be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's > > Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't > > mean that it is Homer for grown-ups. > > > > David > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > The aphorism was reproduced in > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/ > critique-pol-economy/index.htm > > critique-pol-economy/index.htm> > > , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859, > > most of > > which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the > > Crisis of Psychology, > > > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about > > human anatomy holding > > > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this > > elsewhere (in his > > > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and > > obviously finds it an > > > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its > > non-teleological > > > character: he knows that saying that humans > > developed from apes is not the > > > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become > > humans. > > > > > > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can > > figure out, the Grundrisse > > > wasn't published until 1939, five years after > > Vygotsky's death. Did > > > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some > > other place where Marx > > > says this that I don't know about? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From smago@uga.edu Thu Dec 7 05:48:06 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:48:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE December Newsletter Message-ID: The December JoLLE newsletter is now available! Please feel free to share it with your personal social media pages or anywhere else you think is appropriate. Smore Twitter Facebook From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Dec 7 10:33:33 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:33:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Message-ID: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> Steemed xmca'ers, the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's writings. I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! The whole issue is published here: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. Alfredo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Roth 2017 Neoformation A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1361910 bytes Desc: Roth 2017 Neoformation A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171207/f030e3aa/attachment-0001.pdf From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Thu Dec 7 13:51:45 2017 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:51:45 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera John-Steiner has passed away Message-ID: Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Constructing a Community of Thought Last Letter.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 248659 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171207/1455ead7/attachment.pdf From kindred.jessica@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 14:06:08 2017 From: kindred.jessica@gmail.com (Jessica Kindred) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05FC53E9-BB5F-4FED-AD32-46EA35A44376@gmail.com> I?m so deeply saddened by this news. There was a wonderful professor and mentor to me when she was in New York at the CUNY Graduate Center. Her innovative teaching, generous insight, and inspired compassion was such a gift, not to mention her beautiful writing, which stays with us. She also led some wonderful conversations at Movement Research in New York City on Dance with Dance Collaborations in 1993, bridging the academic and artistic communities. I?m very grateful to her, and I send my deepest condolences to her daughter Suki and her grandchildren who brought her such joy. Jessie Kindred On Dec 7, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 14:14:13 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 00:14:13 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: <05FC53E9-BB5F-4FED-AD32-46EA35A44376@gmail.com> Message-ID: I did not know her personally unfortunately. A great loss for science and humanity. Ulvi 8 Ara 2017 01:09 tarihinde "Jessica Kindred" yazd?: I?m so deeply saddened by this news. There was a wonderful professor and mentor to me when she was in New York at the CUNY Graduate Center. Her innovative teaching, generous insight, and inspired compassion was such a gift, not to mention her beautiful writing, which stays with us. She also led some wonderful conversations at Movement Research in New York City on Dance with Dance Collaborations in 1993, bridging the academic and artistic communities. I?m very grateful to her, and I send my deepest condolences to her daughter Suki and her grandchildren who brought her such joy. Jessie Kindred On Dec 7, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* From arazfar@uic.edu Thu Dec 7 14:13:53 2017 From: arazfar@uic.edu (Aria Razfar) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:13:53 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005401d36fa8$ab0cd490$01267db0$@uic.edu> Very saddened by this news. May you rest in peace and power Vera. A true trailblazer indeed. Your legacy lives on. Aria Aria Razfar Professor of Education and Linguistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 312-413-8373 arazfar@uic.edu -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 3:52 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera John-Steiner has passed away Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Thu Dec 7 14:21:53 2017 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:21:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What a sad loss. I only met Vera once, when she gave a talk in Bristol, but I loved her writing, especially 'Creative Collaboration'. Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: 07 December 2017 21:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera John-Steiner has passed away Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From laires11@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 14:49:23 2017 From: laires11@gmail.com (Luisa Aires) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:49:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: <05FC53E9-BB5F-4FED-AD32-46EA35A44376@gmail.com> References: <05FC53E9-BB5F-4FED-AD32-46EA35A44376@gmail.com> Message-ID: A great loss for all of us. Luisa 2017-12-07 22:06 GMT+00:00 Jessica Kindred : > I?m so deeply saddened by this news. There was a wonderful professor and > mentor to me when she was in New York at the CUNY Graduate Center. Her > innovative teaching, generous insight, and inspired compassion was such a > gift, not to mention her beautiful writing, which stays with us. She also > led some wonderful conversations at Movement Research in New York City on > Dance with Dance Collaborations in 1993, bridging the academic and artistic > communities. I?m very grateful to her, and I send my deepest condolences to > her daughter Suki and her grandchildren who brought her such joy. > Jessie Kindred > > On Dec 7, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Robert Lake > wrote: > > Dear XMCA Family, > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > experienced a stroke. > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and > an obituary as > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > mentioned above. > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > *Robert Lake* > > -- Department of Education and Distance Learning, Universidade Aberta Centre of Studies on Migrations and Intercultural Relations (CEMRI) R. Amial, n? 752, 4200-055 Porto, Portugal laires@uab.pt www.uab.pt From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Dec 7 15:00:33 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:00:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1512687633564.54783@iped.uio.no> Thanks for sharing this with us, Robert. I am deeply saddened by this loss. Vera's voice has been a hugely important one in our field, and in this list, a voice we were so privileged to hear and respond to just few days ago. While her voice will be very missed, the posts, letters and texts recently shared here are but testimony that her words are and will continue to be well alive. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: 07 December 2017 23:21 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away What a sad loss. I only met Vera once, when she gave a talk in Bristol, but I loved her writing, especially 'Creative Collaboration'. Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: 07 December 2017 21:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera John-Steiner has passed away Dear XMCA Family, Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she experienced a stroke. She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and an obituary as it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book mentioned above. Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. *Robert Lake* ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From gutierkd@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 15:11:29 2017 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:11:29 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn from her humanity. Kris (excuse typos) Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative Member, National Academy of Education University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: > > Dear XMCA Family, > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > experienced a stroke. > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and > an obituary as > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > mentioned above. > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > *Robert Lake* > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Dec 7 15:55:43 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:55:43 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> Message-ID: <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her personally, but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in the exploration of collaboration, an aspect of human life which Vera championed and for which she will be forever remembered. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn from her humanity. Kris > > (excuse typos) > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > Carol Liu Professor > Graduate School of Education > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > Member, National Academy of Education > University of California, Berkeley > 5629 Tolman Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: >> >> Dear XMCA Family, >> >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she >> experienced a stroke. >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and >> an obituary as >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book >> mentioned above. >> >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. >> *Robert Lake* >> > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Dec 7 16:09:46 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:09:46 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: Vera has been a special person in my life for more than 40 years. She was one of the first colleagues to seek to educate me in Vygotsky's ideas and a constant source of inspiration in my teaching. I fear I never met up to her standards as a pupil, but I am certain that not only I, but many many others, benefited from her tireless efforts. She remains a standard to try to live up to. And, lucky for us, her legacy survives in the work of her colleagues, students, and the many outstanding publications she has bequeathed us. :..-(( mike On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her > personally, but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in > the exploration of collaboration, an aspect of human life > which Vera championed and for which she will be forever > remembered. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, > for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she > was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn > from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a > response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her > know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and > strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn > from her humanity. Kris > > > > (excuse typos) > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > > Carol Liu Professor > > Graduate School of Education > > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > > Member, National Academy of Education > > University of California, Berkeley > > 5629 Tolman Hall > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > wrote: > >> > >> Dear XMCA Family, > >> > >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > >> experienced a stroke. > >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information > and > >> an obituary as > >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > >> mentioned above. > >> > >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > >> *Robert Lake* > >> > > > > > > -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner From nataliag@sfu.ca Thu Dec 7 18:23:07 2017 From: nataliag@sfu.ca (Natalia Gajdamaschko) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:23:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: <2106878697.1480211.1512699787019.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Vera's passing profoundly saddens me. My deepest sympathy for Vera's family, her daughter, and her grandchildren. But also deepest condolences to all of us, her colleagues, her students and her friends. She will be fondly remembered by lots of us. Natalia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike cole" To: "Andy Blunden" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 4:09:46 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away Vera has been a special person in my life for more than 40 years. She was one of the first colleagues to seek to educate me in Vygotsky's ideas and a constant source of inspiration in my teaching. I fear I never met up to her standards as a pupil, but I am certain that not only I, but many many others, benefited from her tireless efforts. She remains a standard to try to live up to. And, lucky for us, her legacy survives in the work of her colleagues, students, and the many outstanding publications she has bequeathed us. :..-(( mike On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her > personally, but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in > the exploration of collaboration, an aspect of human life > which Vera championed and for which she will be forever > remembered. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, > for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she > was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn > from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a > response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her > know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and > strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn > from her humanity. Kris > > > > (excuse typos) > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > > Carol Liu Professor > > Graduate School of Education > > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > > Member, National Academy of Education > > University of California, Berkeley > > 5629 Tolman Hall > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > wrote: > >> > >> Dear XMCA Family, > >> > >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > >> experienced a stroke. > >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information > and > >> an obituary as > >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > >> mentioned above. > >> > >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > >> *Robert Lake* > >> > > > > > > -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 20:08:11 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:08:11 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: <2106878697.1480211.1512699787019.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <2106878697.1480211.1512699787019.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: The first I knew of Vera, back in the seventies, she was the mother of my best friend in college. We both had these somewhat famous parents, but, being callow youths busy with greater things, neither of us had really bothered to look into our little legacies. When my old friend spoke of her as "a Vygotsky person" and I found out this Vygotsky person was a pioneering literacy linguist to boot, I decided I was going to look into it for him. Unfortunately, I only met her briefly on her book tours, so I was really flattered when Rob Lake asked me to contribute to her Festschrift. We heard from her just a few weeks ago, so I know she left us with her eyes open and her mind lucid. I also know she left something really important with her son; I'd like to think that she also left something important to me. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Natalia Gajdamaschko wrote: > Vera's passing profoundly saddens me. My deepest sympathy for Vera's > family, her daughter, and her grandchildren. > But also deepest condolences to all of us, her colleagues, her students > and her friends. She will be fondly remembered by lots of us. > Natalia. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike cole" > To: "Andy Blunden" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 4:09:46 PM > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away > > Vera has been a special person in my life for more than > 40 years. She was one of the first colleagues to seek to educate me in > Vygotsky's ideas and a constant source of inspiration in my teaching. I > fear I never met up to her standards as a pupil, but I am certain that not > only I, but many many others, benefited from her tireless efforts. > > She remains a standard to try to live up to. And, lucky for us, > her legacy survives in the work of her colleagues, students, and the many > outstanding publications she has bequeathed us. > > :..-(( > > mike > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her > > personally, but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in > > the exploration of collaboration, an aspect of human life > > which Vera championed and for which she will be forever > > remembered. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > > > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, > > for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as > she > > was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn > > from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a > > response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let > her > > know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and > > strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to > learn > > from her humanity. Kris > > > > > > (excuse typos) > > > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > > > Carol Liu Professor > > > Graduate School of Education > > > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > > > Member, National Academy of Education > > > University of California, Berkeley > > > 5629 Tolman Hall > > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > > > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear XMCA Family, > > >> > > >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > > >> experienced a stroke. > > >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more > information > > and > > >> an obituary as > > >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > > >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > > Teaching, > > >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > > >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > > >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > > >> mentioned above. > > >> > > >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > > >> *Robert Lake* > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > > From patrick.jaki@gmail.com Thu Dec 7 20:48:55 2017 From: patrick.jaki@gmail.com (Patrick Jaki) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:48:55 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I did not know her personally, but her contribution to academia is indeed a blessing to the academic community. Go in peace! Condolences to the family and the academic community. Patrick Jaki On 7 December 2017 at 23:51, Robert Lake wrote: > Dear XMCA Family, > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > experienced a stroke. > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and > an obituary as > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > mentioned above. > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > *Robert Lake* > -- *Patrick Jaki* From smago@uga.edu Fri Dec 8 02:51:20 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:51:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: I got to know Vera through the Vygotsky circuit, and can state with confidence that I've never met a better human being. She did exemplary work too, but she was always one of those people I wanted to be like when I grew up. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:56 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her personally, but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in the exploration of collaboration, an aspect of human life which Vera championed and for which she will be forever remembered. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn from her humanity. Kris > > (excuse typos) > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > Carol Liu Professor > Graduate School of Education > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > Member, National Academy of Education > University of California, Berkeley > 5629 Tolman Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: >> >> Dear XMCA Family, >> >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she >> experienced a stroke. >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and >> an obituary as >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book >> mentioned above. >> >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. >> *Robert Lake* >> > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Fri Dec 8 06:28:58 2017 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:28:58 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: I first met Vera when I was working on my dissertation. The annual AERA meeting was in San Francisco that year. I wrote to her and asked her if you would be willing and available to join me for breakfast. For me, this was a long shot, so you can imagine my surprise when she agreed to meet with me. We met in the restaurant inside the Warwick Hotel. she enjoyed herbal tea and toast while I had coffee and oatmeal. I was amazed at her focused gift of empathic listening in the crowded and bustling atmosphere during the peak of the breakfast period in a hotel filled with educational researchers. She helped me cross the wide expanse of my dissertation topic which was titled ?*A Curriculum of Imagination beyond Walls of Standardization?* I was in need of a way to connect the inner processes of incubated thinking and meditation with curriculum and pedagogy. Her notion of ?cognitive pluralism? (1995) and the entire text of *Notebooks of the Mind *was the bridge I needed to help me move forward (and backwards) without being waylaid in Howard Gardner?s (1985) biologically based *Frames of Mind. *When I first heard the news of Vera's passing, I experienced a palpable sense of loss and regret that I was not able to thank her for everything in person or even in a phone call one last time. I carried these emotions with me into a grocery store after work. I was standing in the checkout line and one of our doctoral students who was struggling with his dissertation saw me. We talked about what he was going through right there in the front of store with people going past us continually. As we finished and I was loading groceries in my car, it hit me so hard that I was passing Vera's gifts to me to the next generation and my inner turmoil has subsided. Thank-you Vera! *Robert Lake* On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I got to know Vera through the Vygotsky circuit, and can state with > confidence that I've never met a better human being. She did exemplary work > too, but she was always one of those people I wanted to be like when I grew > up. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:56 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away > > I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her personally, > but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in the exploration of > collaboration, an aspect of human life which Vera championed and for which > she will be forever remembered. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, > for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as she > was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn > from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a > response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let her > know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and > strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to learn > from her humanity. Kris > > > > (excuse typos) > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > > Carol Liu Professor > > Graduate School of Education > > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > > Member, National Academy of Education > > University of California, Berkeley > > 5629 Tolman Hall > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > wrote: > >> > >> Dear XMCA Family, > >> > >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > >> experienced a stroke. > >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information > and > >> an obituary as > >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > >> mentioned above. > >> > >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > >> *Robert Lake* > >> > > > > > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Dec 8 21:48:40 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:48:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The illuminance that was Vera In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> , Message-ID: Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of no words? Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete that the Old Greeks talked about. I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words or less. She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate students, and even one another. Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my meaning. I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator be," might be on her family crest. Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will be for us. It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for that? Can it be replicated? Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would there be enough room for so many of us? I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her introspection. An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond socially, quietly, peacefully. Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I feel she is with me still. I hope you feel that way too. Kindest regards, Annalisa From anamshane@gmail.com Fri Dec 8 22:33:56 2017 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 06:33:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: Dear all, What a profoundly sad news of Vera's passing. It leaves a deep void in me... I first "met" Vera through reading her works, and thorugh stories about her and her passionate interest in Vygotsky's work. She was always interested in her young colleagues, their ideas, and their explanations. Like Bob Lake, I also met Vera in person at an AERA conference - my was in Chicago. She played an crucial role in my return to the academia, after a 10 year hiatus. She found so many interesting topics in my stories and my unpublished writing! I was amazed and lifted into the realm of her passionate searches. She helped me see the value of my scholarship, and she always supported my searches and a journey to other parts of socio-cultural realm. Our joint work on publishing the book "Vygotsky and Creativity" together with Cathrene Connery, was an eye opening experience on many, many levels! Vera died on the same day when another brilliant women, scholar and mentor died in Belgrade - Vesna Ognjenovic. She was important for her activism in using Vygotskian ideas to create an organization to support people during and after the wars in Yugoslavia, to develop a lot of new ways for community organization and social therapy! Two important women, died on the same day! Two people who meant so much to so many people! I am grateful to have known them. Ana On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:30 AM Robert Lake wrote: > I first met Vera when I was working on my dissertation. The annual AERA > meeting was in San Francisco that year. I wrote to her and asked her if you > would be willing and available to join me for breakfast. For me, this was a > long shot, so you can imagine my surprise when she agreed to meet with me. > We met in the restaurant inside the Warwick Hotel. she enjoyed herbal tea > and toast while I had coffee and oatmeal. I was amazed at her focused gift > of empathic listening in the crowded and bustling atmosphere during the > peak of the breakfast period in a hotel filled with educational > researchers. She > helped me cross the wide expanse of my dissertation topic which was titled > ?*A > Curriculum of Imagination beyond Walls of Standardization?* I was in need > of a way to connect the inner processes of incubated thinking and > meditation with curriculum and pedagogy. Her notion of ?cognitive > pluralism? (1995) and the entire text of *Notebooks of the Mind *was the > bridge I needed to help me move forward (and backwards) without being > waylaid in Howard Gardner?s (1985) biologically based *Frames of Mind. > *When > I first heard the news of Vera's passing, I experienced a palpable sense of > loss and regret that I was not able to thank her for everything in person > or even in a phone call one last time. I carried these emotions with me > into a grocery store after work. I was standing in the checkout line and > one of our doctoral students who was struggling with his dissertation saw > me. We talked about what he was going through right there in the front of > store with people going past us continually. As we finished and I was > loading groceries in my car, it hit me so hard that I was passing Vera's > gifts to me to the next generation and my inner turmoil has subsided. > > Thank-you Vera! > > *Robert Lake* > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > I got to know Vera through the Vygotsky circuit, and can state with > > confidence that I've never met a better human being. She did exemplary > work > > too, but she was always one of those people I wanted to be like when I > grew > > up. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:56 PM > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away > > > > I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her personally, > > but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in the exploration of > > collaboration, an aspect of human life which Vera championed and for > which > > she will be forever remembered. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > > > My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, > > for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as > she > > was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn > > from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a > > response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let > her > > know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and > > strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to > learn > > from her humanity. Kris > > > > > > (excuse typos) > > > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > > > Carol Liu Professor > > > Graduate School of Education > > > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > > > Member, National Academy of Education > > > University of California, Berkeley > > > 5629 Tolman Hall > > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > > > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear XMCA Family, > > >> > > >> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > > >> experienced a stroke. > > >> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more > information > > and > > >> an obituary as > > >> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > > >> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > > Teaching, > > >> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > > >> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > > >> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > > >> mentioned above. > > >> > > >> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > > >> *Robert Lake* > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, > 2017 > Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An > Intellectual Genealogy. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > -- *Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D.* Chestnut Hill College, Associate Professor of Education Dialogic Pedagogy Journal, deputy Editor-in-Chief (dpj.pitt.edu) e-mails: shaneam@chc.edu anamshane@gmail.com Phone: +1 267-334-2905 From leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com Sat Dec 9 01:23:13 2017 From: leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com (Leif Strandberg) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:23:13 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: <97A542AB-D367-4A2A-BCE8-FF430BA66178@telia.com> What sad news. Both Vera and Vesna have passed away. I did not know Vera, other from her books - and not least the preface in Mind in Society (1978). But Vesna Ognjenovic I did know - very well.We worked together in her exciting project Zdravo da Ste in ex Yugoslavia, and we met both there and in other places. Sometimes we met in New York together with Lois Holzman and her equally exciting projects. Vesna, thank you for your deep commitment to human development in a hard time of war and destruction. You gave hope. Thanks. Leif from Sweden 9 dec 2017 kl. 07:33 skrev Ana Marjanovic-Shane : > Dear all, > > What a profoundly sad news of Vera's passing. It leaves a deep void in > me... I first "met" Vera through reading her works, and thorugh stories > about her and her passionate interest in Vygotsky's work. She was always > interested in her young colleagues, their ideas, and their explanations. > Like Bob Lake, I also met Vera in person at an AERA conference - my was in > Chicago. She played an crucial role in my return to the academia, after a > 10 year hiatus. She found so many interesting topics in my stories and my > unpublished writing! I was amazed and lifted into the realm of her > passionate searches. She helped me see the value of my scholarship, and > she always supported my searches and a journey to other parts of > socio-cultural realm. Our joint work on publishing the book "Vygotsky and > Creativity" together with Cathrene Connery, was an eye opening experience > on many, many levels! > > Vera died on the same day when another brilliant women, scholar and mentor > died in Belgrade - Vesna Ognjenovic. She was important for her activism in > using Vygotskian ideas to create an organization to support people during > and after the wars in Yugoslavia, to develop a lot of new ways for > community organization and social therapy! > > Two important women, died on the same day! Two people who meant so much to > so many people! > > I am grateful to have known them. > > Ana > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:30 AM Robert Lake > wrote: > >> I first met Vera when I was working on my dissertation. The annual AERA >> meeting was in San Francisco that year. I wrote to her and asked her if you >> would be willing and available to join me for breakfast. For me, this was a >> long shot, so you can imagine my surprise when she agreed to meet with me. >> We met in the restaurant inside the Warwick Hotel. she enjoyed herbal tea >> and toast while I had coffee and oatmeal. I was amazed at her focused gift >> of empathic listening in the crowded and bustling atmosphere during the >> peak of the breakfast period in a hotel filled with educational >> researchers. She >> helped me cross the wide expanse of my dissertation topic which was titled >> ?*A >> Curriculum of Imagination beyond Walls of Standardization?* I was in need >> of a way to connect the inner processes of incubated thinking and >> meditation with curriculum and pedagogy. Her notion of ?cognitive >> pluralism? (1995) and the entire text of *Notebooks of the Mind *was the >> bridge I needed to help me move forward (and backwards) without being >> waylaid in Howard Gardner?s (1985) biologically based *Frames of Mind. >> *When >> I first heard the news of Vera's passing, I experienced a palpable sense of >> loss and regret that I was not able to thank her for everything in person >> or even in a phone call one last time. I carried these emotions with me >> into a grocery store after work. I was standing in the checkout line and >> one of our doctoral students who was struggling with his dissertation saw >> me. We talked about what he was going through right there in the front of >> store with people going past us continually. As we finished and I was >> loading groceries in my car, it hit me so hard that I was passing Vera's >> gifts to me to the next generation and my inner turmoil has subsided. >> >> Thank-you Vera! >> >> *Robert Lake* >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >> >>> I got to know Vera through the Vygotsky circuit, and can state with >>> confidence that I've never met a better human being. She did exemplary >> work >>> too, but she was always one of those people I wanted to be like when I >> grew >>> up. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:56 PM >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away >>> >>> I am sad to hear of Vera's passing as well. I never met her personally, >>> but I was privileged to collaborate with Vera in the exploration of >>> collaboration, an aspect of human life which Vera championed and for >> which >>> she will be forever remembered. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 8/12/2017 10:11 AM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: >>>> My heart is heavy. With love, appreciation, admiration, and respect, >>> for a giant in our field, who was as generous, inclusive, and kind, as >> she >>> was brilliant. So grateful to have had the opportunity to know and learn >>> from her across various spaces. Selfishly, I was sad I didn?t get a >>> response to my recent message to her. Of course, the point was to let >> her >>> know again how we all felt about her and her contribution. Love and >>> strength to her family and loved ones. May our community continue to >> learn >>> from her humanity. Kris >>>> >>>> (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> Kris D. Guti?rrez >>>> Carol Liu Professor >>>> Graduate School of Education >>>> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >>>> Member, National Academy of Education >>>> University of California, Berkeley >>>> 5629 Tolman Hall >>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >>>> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear XMCA Family, >>>>> >>>>> Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she >>>>> experienced a stroke. >>>>> She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more >> information >>> and >>>>> an obituary as >>>>> it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from >>>>> *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, >>> Teaching, >>>>> and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). >>>>> In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions >>>>> from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book >>>>> mentioned above. >>>>> >>>>> Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. >>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> Associate Professor >> Social Foundations of Education >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> Georgia Southern University >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >> 2017 >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >> Intellectual Genealogy. >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >> Dewey-*Democracy >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >> > -- > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D.* > Chestnut Hill College, Associate Professor of Education > Dialogic Pedagogy Journal, deputy Editor-in-Chief (dpj.pitt.edu) > e-mails: shaneam@chc.edu > anamshane@gmail.com > Phone: +1 267-334-2905 From carolmacdon@gmail.com Sat Dec 9 01:45:27 2017 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 11:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Something interesting that is taking off Message-ID: A new typeface/font for people with dyslexia - TEDx explanation from the designer. https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/media-and-awards/ I see that this has reached South Africa, but that is not going to stop me from going and visiting the local remedial schools with the good news. A lovely presentation. Carol -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Cultural Historical Activity Theory Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From carolmacdon@gmail.com Sat Dec 9 01:45:27 2017 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 11:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Something interesting that is taking off Message-ID: A new typeface/font for people with dyslexia - TEDx explanation from the designer. https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/media-and-awards/ I see that this has reached South Africa, but that is not going to stop me from going and visiting the local remedial schools with the good news. A lovely presentation. Carol -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Cultural Historical Activity Theory Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Sat Dec 9 12:08:03 2017 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> Message-ID: Thank-you Annalisa for this thoughtful portrait of Vera as a unique, deeply reflective and "elegant thinker" as you so aptly describe her. I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? RL On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > > > Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. > > > Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, > her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that > although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the > intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated > her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > > > My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she > witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world > directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of > us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity > during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a > hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther > than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She > could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so > meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent > pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of > no words? > > > Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of > time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is > if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work > ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete > that the Old Greeks talked about. > > > I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she > disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and > white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very > existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a > personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was > not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words > or less. > > > She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can > sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing > exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a > debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given > the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in > this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch > a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better > contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > > > I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world > through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to > truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many > opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her > students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order > to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. > It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a > dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate > students, and even one another. > > > Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on > the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other > women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not > afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it > mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was > aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we > could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my > meaning. > > > I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was > annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for > survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between > two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is > vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all > challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator > be," might be on her family crest. > > > Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one > of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she > would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so > even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in > reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will > be for us. > > > It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the > development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such > work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a > person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; > not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its > virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly > altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? > How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for > that? Can it be replicated? > > > Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would > there be enough room for so many of us? > > > I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. > > > I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with > geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" > carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist > where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in > monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred > to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so > elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in > memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her > speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her > introspection. > > > > > An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond > socially, quietly, peacefully. > > > > > Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique > human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I > feel she is with me still. > > I hope you feel that way too. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > Annalisa > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Dec 10 09:57:30 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:57:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> , Message-ID: Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. Vera was excellent at that. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? RL On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > > > Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. > > > Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, > her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that > although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the > intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated > her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > > > My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she > witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world > directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of > us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity > during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a > hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther > than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She > could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so > meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent > pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of > no words? > > > Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of > time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is > if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work > ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete > that the Old Greeks talked about. > > > I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she > disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and > white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very > existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a > personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was > not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words > or less. > > > She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can > sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing > exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a > debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given > the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in > this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch > a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better > contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > > > I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world > through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to > truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many > opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her > students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order > to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. > It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a > dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate > students, and even one another. > > > Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on > the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other > women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not > afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it > mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was > aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we > could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my > meaning. > > > I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was > annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for > survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between > two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is > vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all > challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator > be," might be on her family crest. > > > Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one > of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she > would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so > even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in > reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will > be for us. > > > It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the > development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such > work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a > person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; > not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its > virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly > altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? > How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for > that? Can it be replicated? > > > Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would > there be enough room for so many of us? > > > I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. > > > I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with > geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" > carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist > where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in > monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred > to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so > elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in > memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her > speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her > introspection. > > > > > An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond > socially, quietly, peacefully. > > > > > Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique > human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I > feel she is with me still. > > I hope you feel that way too. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > Annalisa > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Dec 11 00:01:26 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:01:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> , , Message-ID: <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. Others? Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. Vera was excellent at that. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? RL On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > > > Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. > > > Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, > her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that > although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the > intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated > her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > > > My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she > witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world > directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of > us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity > during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a > hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther > than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She > could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so > meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent > pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of > no words? > > > Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of > time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is > if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work > ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete > that the Old Greeks talked about. > > > I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she > disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and > white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very > existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a > personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was > not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words > or less. > > > She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can > sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing > exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a > debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given > the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in > this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch > a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better > contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > > > I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world > through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to > truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many > opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her > students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order > to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. > It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a > dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate > students, and even one another. > > > Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on > the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other > women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not > afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it > mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was > aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we > could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my > meaning. > > > I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was > annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for > survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between > two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is > vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all > challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator > be," might be on her family crest. > > > Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one > of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she > would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so > even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in > reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will > be for us. > > > It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the > development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such > work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a > person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; > not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its > virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly > altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? > How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for > that? Can it be replicated? > > > Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would > there be enough room for so many of us? > > > I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. > > > I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with > geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" > carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist > where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in > monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred > to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so > elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in > memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her > speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her > introspection. > > > > > An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond > socially, quietly, peacefully. > > > > > Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique > human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I > feel she is with me still. > > I hope you feel that way too. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > Annalisa > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 01:07:37 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:07:37 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Transformative learning / perezhivanie and learning Message-ID: Would anyone like to have a comment on the basic probable differences on these two in terms of adult learning from experiences? ( I know that perezhivanie is not so much used for adults, this is a question which can be read as "If it could have been used...") Transformative learning too seems to involve a lot about the experience, emotion, cognition, imagination etc What may be missing primarily in transformative learning that could be compensated by perezhivanie? From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 06:10:35 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:10:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Transformative learning / perezhivanie and learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the face of it, all learning entails perezhivanie, with the latter speaking itself through the former in terms of, e.g. learning dispositions or temperaments. I think what would be really interesting to look into is the nuance and subtlety of perezhivanie in the process of transformative learning (which I alluded to while I was writing an article for Social Semiotics in 2015 but I didn't use the term because that time the English translation of "perezhivanie" was under heated discussion within the XMCA community). James *_____________________________________* *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On 11 December 2017 at 09:07, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Would anyone like to have a comment on the basic probable differences on > these two in terms of adult learning from experiences? ( I know that > perezhivanie is not so much used for adults, this is a question which can > be read as "If it could have been used...") > > Transformative learning too seems to involve a lot about the experience, > emotion, cognition, imagination etc > > What may be missing primarily in transformative learning that could be > compensated by perezhivanie? > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 06:19:47 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:19:47 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Transformative learning / perezhivanie and learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you. Can I have the title of your article please? 11 Ara 2017 17:13 tarihinde "James Ma" yazd?: > On the face of it, all learning entails perezhivanie, with the latter > speaking itself through the former in terms of, e.g. learning dispositions > or temperaments. I think what would be really interesting to look into is > the nuance and subtlety of perezhivanie in the process of transformative > learning (which I alluded to while I was writing an article for Social > Semiotics in 2015 but I didn't use the term because that time the English > translation of "perezhivanie" was under heated discussion within the XMCA > community). > > James > > > *_____________________________________* > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > On 11 December 2017 at 09:07, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Would anyone like to have a comment on the basic probable differences on > > these two in terms of adult learning from experiences? ( I know that > > perezhivanie is not so much used for adults, this is a question which can > > be read as "If it could have been used...") > > > > Transformative learning too seems to involve a lot about the experience, > > emotion, cognition, imagination etc > > > > What may be missing primarily in transformative learning that could be > > compensated by perezhivanie? > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Dec 11 06:22:23 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 01:22:23 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit."? Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of formulation mystifying. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. > > Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, > "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > > And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > > Others? > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > > > He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > > > Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" > > > After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > > > The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > > > I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > > > The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. > > > For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > > > Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > > > This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. > > > I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > > > Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > > > So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. > > > Vera was excellent at that. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > > I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > RL > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >> >> >> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >> >> >> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >> >> >> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >> no words? >> >> >> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >> that the Old Greeks talked about. >> >> >> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >> or less. >> >> >> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >> >> >> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >> students, and even one another. >> >> >> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >> meaning. >> >> >> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >> be," might be on her family crest. >> >> >> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >> be for us. >> >> >> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >> that? Can it be replicated? >> >> >> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >> there be enough room for so many of us? >> >> >> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >> >> >> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >> introspection. >> >> >> >> >> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >> socially, quietly, peacefully. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >> feel she is with me still. >> >> I hope you feel that way too. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> >> > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, > 2017 > Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An > Intellectual Genealogy. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 06:36:56 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:36:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Transformative learning / perezhivanie and learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here you are, "Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 On 11 December 2017 at 14:19, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Thank you. > Can I have the title of your article please? > > 11 Ara 2017 17:13 tarihinde "James Ma" yazd?: > > > On the face of it, all learning entails perezhivanie, with the latter > > speaking itself through the former in terms of, e.g. learning > dispositions > > or temperaments. I think what would be really interesting to look into is > > the nuance and subtlety of perezhivanie in the process of transformative > > learning (which I alluded to while I was writing an article for Social > > Semiotics in 2015 but I didn't use the term because that time the English > > translation of "perezhivanie" was under heated discussion within the XMCA > > community). > > > > James > > > > > > *_____________________________________* > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > * > > > > > > On 11 December 2017 at 09:07, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > Would anyone like to have a comment on the basic probable differences > on > > > these two in terms of adult learning from experiences? ( I know that > > > perezhivanie is not so much used for adults, this is a question which > can > > > be read as "If it could have been used...") > > > > > > Transformative learning too seems to involve a lot about the > experience, > > > emotion, cognition, imagination etc > > > > > > What may be missing primarily in transformative learning that could be > > > compensated by perezhivanie? > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 06:41:58 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:41:58 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Transformative learning / perezhivanie and learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you. 11 Ara 2017 17:39 tarihinde "James Ma" yazd?: > Here you are, "Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > On 11 December 2017 at 14:19, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Thank you. > > Can I have the title of your article please? > > > > 11 Ara 2017 17:13 tarihinde "James Ma" yazd?: > > > > > On the face of it, all learning entails perezhivanie, with the latter > > > speaking itself through the former in terms of, e.g. learning > > dispositions > > > or temperaments. I think what would be really interesting to look into > is > > > the nuance and subtlety of perezhivanie in the process of > transformative > > > learning (which I alluded to while I was writing an article for Social > > > Semiotics in 2015 but I didn't use the term because that time the > English > > > translation of "perezhivanie" was under heated discussion within the > XMCA > > > community). > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > *_____________________________________* > > > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > * > > > > > > > > > On 11 December 2017 at 09:07, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > > > Would anyone like to have a comment on the basic probable differences > > on > > > > these two in terms of adult learning from experiences? ( I know that > > > > perezhivanie is not so much used for adults, this is a question which > > can > > > > be read as "If it could have been used...") > > > > > > > > Transformative learning too seems to involve a lot about the > > experience, > > > > emotion, cognition, imagination etc > > > > > > > > What may be missing primarily in transformative learning that could > be > > > > compensated by perezhivanie? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > Virus-free. > > > www.avast.com > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Dec 11 07:07:43 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit."? Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of formulation mystifying. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. > > Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, > "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > > And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > > Others? > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > > > He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > > > Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" > > > After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > > > The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > > > I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > > > The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. > > > For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > > > Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > > > This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. > > > I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > > > Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > > > So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. > > > Vera was excellent at that. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > > I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > RL > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >> >> >> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >> >> >> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >> >> >> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >> no words? >> >> >> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >> that the Old Greeks talked about. >> >> >> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >> or less. >> >> >> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >> >> >> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >> students, and even one another. >> >> >> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >> meaning. >> >> >> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >> be," might be on her family crest. >> >> >> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >> be for us. >> >> >> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >> that? Can it be replicated? >> >> >> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >> there be enough room for so many of us? >> >> >> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >> >> >> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >> introspection. >> >> >> >> >> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >> socially, quietly, peacefully. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >> feel she is with me still. >> >> I hope you feel that way too. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> >> > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, > 2017 > Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An > Intellectual Genealogy. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Dec 11 08:39:14 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:39:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no>, , <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Alfredo, As I was reading your posts and saw your description of Snow's notion of aptitude, as a unit, it reminded me of Gibson's affordance, but in a particular context or specific utility, in that it has specific references. (I also wondered if the list has had previous discussion of perezhivanie and affordances, together?). If these words are the same elephant, but seen from different angles, with differeing emphases, then perhaps aptitude distinguishes itself because it considers time, since what came before and what comes after is part of the continuity as Dewey described. Time is essential to understand or just perceive change. What was interesting to me is to think of an affordance as a unit, which is a different ontological aspect I'd not considered. To me, the thingness of the affordance is different than its ordinance (or co-ordinance) with the environment and the thinker (as a unit). I also didn't understand why it would be necessary to separate effectivities from the affordance? An affordance IS the effectivity in the environment by the thinker, isn't it? An affordance determines successful performance based upon the capability of the thinker in the particular environment. Perezhivanie would have more to do with the discovery of the affordance or interaction with the affordance (hence the frustration or struggle suggested by perezhivanie) inclusive of with the emotional content involved at the precise moment (of learning). Yes? In photography, we have ways of gauging light as it interacts with the plane of the film in the camera. This is performed by choice of the f-stop (the diameter of the aperture of the lens) and the shutter speed (various fractions of a second). To properly expose the film, the skill of the photographer must succeed by intuiting quickly the nature of the light in the environment, to remembering of the kind camera one is using, the type of lens, and the speed of film. How one combines all this together is controlled more by the amount of light there is: If it is a stark bright day then all the choices made lead by that strong sunlight: narrow the aperture or shorten the shutter exposure or both. In the case of low-light conditions, say inside at nighttime, widen the aperture or lengthen the shutter exposure, or both. But this is only mention of the physics dealing with the light sensitivity of the film at the time of exposure. There is more to taking a photograph than that. The content of the image and it's emotional impact, results from the manner the photographer framed the picture and is entirely subjective, it based upon when the photographer decides to squeeze the shutter release, but it is also determined by happenstance and the struggle that the photographer must entertain to decide where to position herself to capture a desired photograph based upon what is in front of the camera. In wartime it's even more critical, if there are landmines or flying bullets (one cannot shoot a gun and a camera at the same time). I wondered if the analogy of the photographer might help in this discussion as a way to think about experienced thinkers and perezhivanie. As well as your introduction the terms of effectivity and affordance into the conversation. Aptitude does seem an odd way to name a unit. I'd have to get used to thinking about it that way, but it sort of makes sense, if I were to equate aptitude as a way to measure whether a photographer had the aptitude to take good photographs compared to great ones. A lot of that ability depends upon the experience of the photographer leading up to that decisive moment to take the photograph. Still, I feel pertaining to experienced thinking, timing is critical, just like a great photographer taking a great photograph. It isn't merely sensing what is in the environment but knowing how to orient to it and when to take the photograph at the precise optimum moment. For what that is worth? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:07 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit."? Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of formulation mystifying. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. > > Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, > "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > > And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > > Others? > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > > > He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > > > Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" > > > After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > > > The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > > > I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > > > The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. > > > For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > > > Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > > > This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. > > > I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > > > Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > > > So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. > > > Vera was excellent at that. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > > I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > RL > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >> >> >> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >> >> >> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >> >> >> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >> no words? >> >> >> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >> that the Old Greeks talked about. >> >> >> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >> or less. >> >> >> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >> >> >> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >> students, and even one another. >> >> >> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >> meaning. >> >> >> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >> be," might be on her family crest. >> >> >> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >> be for us. >> >> >> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >> that? Can it be replicated? >> >> >> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >> there be enough room for so many of us? >> >> >> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >> >> >> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >> introspection. >> >> >> >> >> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >> socially, quietly, peacefully. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >> feel she is with me still. >> >> I hope you feel that way too. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Dec 11 15:03:28 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:03:28 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of different activities. To me, introducing the phrase "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a different activity context. In "The Problem of the Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by taking "person-environment" as a unit. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. > > Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). > > It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. > > Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely > in terms of person-environment unit."? > > Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. > Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a > perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of > formulation mystifying. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. >> >> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, >> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. >> >> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. >> >> Others? >> Alfredo >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >> >> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. >> >> >> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. >> >> >> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" >> >> >> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? >> >> >> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. >> >> >> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. >> >> >> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. >> >> >> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. >> >> >> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. >> >> >> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. >> >> >> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. >> >> >> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. >> >> >> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. >> >> >> Vera was excellent at that. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake >> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera >> >> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision >> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? >> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? >> RL >> >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >>> >>> >>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >>> >>> >>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >>> >>> >>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >>> no words? >>> >>> >>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >>> that the Old Greeks talked about. >>> >>> >>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >>> or less. >>> >>> >>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >>> >>> >>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >>> students, and even one another. >>> >>> >>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >>> meaning. >>> >>> >>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >>> be," might be on her family crest. >>> >>> >>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >>> be for us. >>> >>> >>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >>> that? Can it be replicated? >>> >>> >>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >>> there be enough room for so many of us? >>> >>> >>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >>> >>> >>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >>> introspection. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >>> socially, quietly, peacefully. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >>> feel she is with me still. >>> >>> I hope you feel that way too. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >>> >> -- >> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> Associate Professor >> Social Foundations of Education >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> Georgia Southern University >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >> 2017 >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >> Intellectual Genealogy. >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >> Dewey-*Democracy >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >> >> From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 16:13:40 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:13:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, Just wondering if you are pointing to something like Bateson's "organism-in-the-environment"? Here is one line from Bateson's Korzybsky lecture: "The unit of survival is a flexible organism-in-its-environment." Here is the full text of the lecture: http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/gsb-37-bateson.pdf Andy, do you think that thinking person-in-their-environment would get around the concern that you raise? -greg On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience > was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional > perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units > are therefore units of Aptitude. > > > > Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list > of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for > all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally > important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of > affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" > (Snow, 1992, p. 25). > > > > It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was > saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an > orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit > particular to a given historically developed (in this case, > person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if > only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like > Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas > seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with > regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying > intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a > unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and > situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together > what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written > "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. > > > > Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. > Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > > > Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely > > in terms of person-environment unit."? > > > > Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. > > Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a > > perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of > > formulation mystifying. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year ( > http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper > that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get > better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine > trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is > how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the > work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a > definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of > person-environment unit. > >> > >> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that > influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not > merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed > as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, > 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred > to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience > enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this > modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent > experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, > together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, > asserted that, > >> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless > held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention > to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and > can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's > notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on > intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means > becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > >> > >> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and > "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is > she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking > further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has > become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say > math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > >> > >> Others? > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > >> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > >> > >> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but > before I knew it would be. > >> > >> > >> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > >> > >> > >> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from > there!" > >> > >> > >> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... > the famous Russian psychologist? > >> > >> > >> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > >> > >> > >> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being > "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook > Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > >> > >> > >> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of > perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to > instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment > for teaching and learning. > >> > >> > >> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as > a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was > a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate > why Vygotsky used that word. > >> > >> > >> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been > used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I > did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may > be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced > apology if that is the case. > >> > >> > >> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening > concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, > and tension between the media, the president and the people. > >> > >> > >> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the > American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of > perezhivanie going on. > >> > >> > >> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > >> > >> > >> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an > experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words > appropriately. > >> > >> > >> Vera was excellent at that. > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> > >> Annalisa > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Robert Lake > >> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > >> > >> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > >> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > >> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > >> RL > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > >> > >>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, > >>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that > >>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the > >>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and > populated > >>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > >>> > >>> > >>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world > she > >>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world > >>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than > many of > >>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity > >>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a > >>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther > >>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. > She > >>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so > >>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent > >>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist > of > >>> no words? > >>> > >>> > >>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit > of > >>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion > is > >>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work > >>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the > arete > >>> that the Old Greeks talked about. > >>> > >>> > >>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if > she > >>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black > and > >>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its > very > >>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from > a > >>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but > was > >>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five > words > >>> or less. > >>> > >>> > >>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us > can > >>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even > chafing > >>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a > >>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, > given > >>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because > in > >>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each > stretch > >>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better > >>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > >>> > >>> > >>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world > >>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to > >>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that > many > >>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her > >>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in > order > >>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her > wisdom. > >>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you > has a > >>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate > >>> students, and even one another. > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip > on > >>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support > other > >>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was > not > >>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles > when it > >>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She > was > >>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we > >>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you > get my > >>> meaning. > >>> > >>> > >>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it > was > >>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for > >>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed > between > >>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is > >>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all > >>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling > collaborator > >>> be," might be on her family crest. > >>> > >>> > >>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being > one > >>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she > >>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, > so > >>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in > >>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it > will > >>> be for us. > >>> > >>> > >>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the > >>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such > >>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a > >>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative > accomplishment; > >>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its > >>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly > >>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human > endeavor? > >>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the > recipe for > >>> that? Can it be replicated? > >>> > >>> > >>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? > Would > >>> there be enough room for so many of us? > >>> > >>> > >>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of > hers. > >>> > >>> > >>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with > >>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word > "genius" > >>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist > >>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while > enthralled in > >>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera > preferred > >>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and > so > >>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your > vocabularies, in > >>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her > >>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her > >>> introspection. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond > >>> socially, quietly, peacefully. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this > unique > >>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but > I > >>> feel she is with me still. > >>> > >>> I hope you feel that way too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kindest regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >> Associate Professor > >> Social Foundations of Education > >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >> Georgia Southern University > >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* > vol.39, > >> 2017 > >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An > >> Intellectual Genealogy. > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > must be > >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >> Dewey-*Democracy > >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >> > >> > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ablunden@mira.net Mon Dec 11 16:23:07 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:23:07 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: It raises but does not answer the problem how we are to conceive of "the environment." Of course, I understand the point being made, which is the foundation of the ecological point of view, a more developed approach to the understanding of biology then organism and cell. These are crucial insights, but isn't "environment" in this sense a concept relative to the particular organism in question? Where does the concept of "ecosystem" fit in here then? I am not trying to "get around" anything and adding the word "flexible" doesn't help either. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2017 11:13 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Alfredo, > Just wondering if you are pointing to something like > Bateson's "organism-in-the-environment"? > Here is one line from Bateson's Korzybsky lecture: > "The unit of survival is a flexible > organism-in-its-environment." > > Here is the full text of the lecture: > http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/gsb-37-bateson.pdf > > Andy, do you think that thinking > person-in-their-environment would get around the concern > that you raise? > > -greg > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - > i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one > which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are > put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire > person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in > different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic > experience > was survived, and that is something which would be > ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a > transactional perspective, and talks about > person-situation units; person-situation units are > therefore units of Aptitude. > > > > Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached > or abstracted list of qualities of instructional > treatments that will be equally important for all > persons or similar list of qualities of persons that > will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude > is the unique coalition of affordances and > effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" > (Snow, 1992, p. 25). > > > > It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to > what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the > environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox > Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us > to some unit particular to a given historically > developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But > so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only > because he had not the time to work it further > (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less > hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me > quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics > with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I > am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or > experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that > does not integrate within itself a transaction between > person and situation, then I am probably going to have > troubles to put back together what my analyses has > dismembered. Also, note that I had written > "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I > like the latter better. > > > > Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, > today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and > Perezhivanie > > > > Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' > precisely > > in terms of person-environment unit."? > > > > Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a > unit of B. > > Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that > there is a > > perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this > kind of > > formulation mystifying. > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year > (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679 > ), as > well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on > how a group of kids and a teacher get better at > reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine > trajectories of development in terms of > person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined > perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the > work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who > worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' > precisely in terms of person-environment unit. > >> > >> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of > persons that influence later developments, given > specified conditions... the are ... not merely > correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to > (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the > particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To > me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey > referred to as continuity of experience, the basic > principle that "every experience enacted and undergone > modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this > modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the > quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in > Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together > with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist > approaches, asserted that, > >> "The word experience should be dropped entirely > from discussion unless held strictly to a single > definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to > the fact that Existence has organism and environment > as its aspects, and can not be identified with either > as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of > aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic > view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a > monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a > skilled thinking body one may add. > >> > >> And so, if I wonder on the relation between > "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert > proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she > who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon > which walking further presents as an immediate > possibility, for her way of walking has become more > path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say > path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list > server. > >> > >> Others? > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Annalisa Aguilar > > >> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and > Perezhivanie > >> > >> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, > Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > >> > >> > >> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have > a child. > >> > >> > >> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh > Vygotsky is from there!" > >> > >> > >> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind > him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > >> > >> > >> The light went off and he said he had studied him > 20 years ago. > >> > >> > >> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one > of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie > slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me > about. Two great gifts. > >> > >> > >> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my > definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood > Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had > to do with the emotional content of the environment > for teaching and learning. > >> > >> > >> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting > expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way > to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word > meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to > appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > >> > >> > >> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the > listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific > to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have > the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, > so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed > threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > >> > >> > >> This now makes me think about controversy, such as > what is happening concerning last year's election, but > also in the US government these days, and tension > between the media, the president and the people. > >> > >> > >> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series > drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft > of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > >> > >> > >> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > >> > >> > >> So to answer the question, I find the relationship > between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is > timing. A choosing words appropriately. > >> > >> > >> Vera was excellent at that. > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> > >> Annalisa > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Robert Lake > > >> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > >> > >> I have a question for the listserve. How would you > envision > >> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" > with perezhivanie? > >> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > >> RL > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar > > wrote: > >> > >>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as > ontologies go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and > demanding. At the same time, > >>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from > recent experience that > >>> although she did not post frequently on the list, > she dearly valued the > >>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It > nourished and populated > >>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > >>> > >>> > >>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were > privy to the world she > >>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not > perceive this world > >>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much > differently than many of > >>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide > variety of human activity > >>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was > kind of standing on a > >>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that > she could see farther > >>> than I could, without the means to detect what she > could see vividly. She > >>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant > pauses could be so > >>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to > say that these silent > >>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a > linguist be a linguist of > >>> no words? > >>> > >>> > >>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity > to spend a little bit of > >>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to > love her. My opinion is > >>> if you could not love her, then you were left to > admire her mind, work > >>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small > crumbs; Vera was the arete > >>> that the Old Greeks talked about. > >>> > >>> > >>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be > accepting of others even if she > >>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the > grey tones in a black and > >>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that > viewpoint was for its very > >>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by > someone, arising from a > >>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this > demands respect, but was > >>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes > she could do in five words > >>> or less. > >>> > >>> > >>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her > being, as some of us can > >>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating > disagreements, even chafing > >>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. > Such rapport during a > >>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which > we all must reach, given > >>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I > feel that way because in > >>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to > learn), we each stretch > >>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each > of us a better > >>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > >>> > >>> > >>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera > fought for a better world > >>> through her efforts to understand how to be a > better teacher and how to > >>> truly serve the developing minds of children who > might not have that many > >>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged > that temperament in her > >>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It > was how to serve in order > >>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which > was a sign of her wisdom. > >>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I > believe every one of you has a > >>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and > tomorrow's graduate > >>> students, and even one another. > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove > with a strong grip on > >>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was > not afraid to support other > >>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no > matter the size. She was not > >>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she > chose her battles when it > >>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long > way to go, baby. She was > >>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about > our future. I wish we > >>> could have shared better news with her than > hurricane Harvey, if you get my > >>> meaning. > >>> > >>> > >>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength > if only because it was > >>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw > resilience as necessary for > >>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as > resilience expressed between > >>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued > collaboration; it is > >>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in > order to survive all > >>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A > sterling collaborator > >>> be," might be on her family crest. > >>> > >>> > >>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call > geniuses, Vygotsky being one > >>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during > office hours that she > >>> would continue to find new insights in his work > after each re-reading, so > >>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that > to look forward to in > >>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the > case for her, then it will > >>> be for us. > >>> > >>> > >>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it > is to study the > >>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is > one residual of such > >>> work. She was onto something there. She was > looking at what occasions a > >>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of > creative accomplishment; > >>> not what is pathological about the mind in > society, but what were its > >>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a > pinnacle, significantly > >>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, > or any human endeavor? > >>> How does one become distinguished in creative > work? What was the recipe for > >>> that? Can it be replicated? > >>> > >>> > >>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would > the world be like? Would > >>> there be enough room for so many of us? > >>> > >>> > >>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate > Hungarian accent of hers. > >>> > >>> > >>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a > world populated with > >>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic > baggage that the word "genius" > >>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, > his head on his fist > >>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in > particular while enthralled in > >>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it > human. Instead, Vera preferred > >>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is > so apt a phrase, and so > >>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase > in your vocabularies, in > >>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an > elegant thinker; her > >>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that > revealed the ripples of her > >>> introspection. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they > swim in a clear pond > >>> socially, quietly, peacefully. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt > gratitude for this unique > >>> human being in this very long post. I want to say > I will miss her, but I > >>> feel she is with me still. > >>> > >>> I hope you feel that way too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kindest regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >> Associate Professor > >> Social Foundations of Education > >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >> Georgia Southern University > >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and > Cultural Studies,* vol.39, > >> 2017 > >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of > Social Imagination: An > >> Intellectual Genealogy. > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > > >> Webpage: > https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must be > >> born anew in every generation, and education is its > midwife.* John > >> Dewey-*Democracy > >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Dec 11 16:29:50 2017 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:29:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <38318A58-8024-4AA0-8779-AE9B3F1B58E4@gmail.com> Thanks to Robert for asking this question posed in this thread, and to Christopher Shank for Vera?s obituary. I have been thinking about what constitutes trauma. A single traumatic event may be responded to in very different ways by different people. PTSD for some, much less harm for others. Also, a single event may not be traumatic for a given person, but over time, like water torture, similar events may take a big toll on that person. Consider domestic abuse and other kinds of bullying. Vygotsky?s example of the severity of effect on three children of having an alcoholic mother seems like this. And how does teaching and learning play into resilience, both for big and small insults? And what part does teaching, in the broadest sense, not just in school, play in what comes from the expert, in the academic sense, and what comes from peers who have learned what they know ?in the streets? so to speak? Of course a teacher can be both expert and peer, which may be the best support. I am going to make a leap and share with the chat something that was posted by a colleague of mine at the University of New Mexico who attended Vera?s funeral. Vera was a private person, so might have been uncomfortable sharing this. But I think that the attached notes on things said of Vera at her funeral capture much better than my words what an experienced thinker in the academic sense could also be a person who has responded to trauma in a most courageous way. Someone who might help us deal with the trauma of everyday life. Henry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Vera recollections.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 125423 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171211/e3462d0c/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- > On Dec 11, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience > was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. >> >> Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). >> >> It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. >> >> Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >> >> Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely >> in terms of person-environment unit."? >> >> Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. >> Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a >> perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of >> formulation mystifying. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. >>> >>> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, >>> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. >>> >>> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. >>> >>> Others? >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >>> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >>> >>> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. >>> >>> >>> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. >>> >>> >>> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" >>> >>> >>> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? >>> >>> >>> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. >>> >>> >>> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. >>> >>> >>> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. >>> >>> >>> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. >>> >>> >>> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. >>> >>> >>> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. >>> >>> >>> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. >>> >>> >>> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. >>> >>> >>> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. >>> >>> >>> Vera was excellent at that. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake >>> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera >>> >>> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision >>> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? >>> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? >>> RL >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >>> >>>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >>>> >>>> >>>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >>>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >>>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >>>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >>>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >>>> >>>> >>>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >>>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >>>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >>>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >>>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >>>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >>>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >>>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >>>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >>>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >>>> no words? >>>> >>>> >>>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >>>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >>>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >>>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >>>> that the Old Greeks talked about. >>>> >>>> >>>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >>>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >>>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >>>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >>>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >>>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >>>> or less. >>>> >>>> >>>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >>>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >>>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >>>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >>>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >>>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >>>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >>>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >>>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >>>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >>>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >>>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >>>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >>>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >>>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >>>> students, and even one another. >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >>>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >>>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >>>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >>>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >>>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >>>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >>>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >>>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >>>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >>>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >>>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >>>> be," might be on her family crest. >>>> >>>> >>>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >>>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >>>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >>>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >>>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >>>> be for us. >>>> >>>> >>>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >>>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >>>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >>>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >>>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >>>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >>>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >>>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >>>> that? Can it be replicated? >>>> >>>> >>>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >>>> there be enough room for so many of us? >>>> >>>> >>>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >>>> >>>> >>>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >>>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >>>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >>>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >>>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >>>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >>>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >>>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >>>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >>>> introspection. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >>>> socially, quietly, peacefully. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >>>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >>>> feel she is with me still. >>>> >>>> I hope you feel that way too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Annalisa >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Social Foundations of Education >>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>> Georgia Southern University >>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >>> 2017 >>> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >>> Intellectual Genealogy. >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>> Dewey-*Democracy >>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>> >>> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 12 02:20:55 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:20:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no> Hi Andy, when Snow talks about aptitudes, he is also addressing personality as a whole, even though his field and focus is on learning and education. So, I agree with you "aptitude" is an abstraction from person and activity, but then again, if you hold it that perezhivanie is unit of personality (as you do in some of your writings), then we can as well say that "aptitudes" for Snow are a unit of personality, for it is as a myriad of such aptitudes that a person becomes and can be singularised as such across a life time. Vygotsky is quite clear when he writes that, perezhivanie, "is a unit where, on the one hand, in and indivisible state, the environment is represented, i.e. that which is being experienced?a perezhivanie is always related to something which is found outside the person?and on the other hand, what is represented is how I, myself, am experiences this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the environmental characteristics are represented in an emotional experience" And so, if we obviate the name "perezhivanie", the unit he is describing quite explicitly is such that it has person and environment as its irreducible aspects; just as word meaning, as a unit of verbal thinking, has thinking and speech as its aspects. And so, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that: "Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by taking "person-environment" as a unit." Beside the point that I do not agree with you that "traumatic experiences" is the core of what Vygotsky was discussing, even though trauma may have been part of it, I assume that you mean that perezhivanija also have a beginning and an end, and so they carry on as having an impact in how future experiences are had (and not just the situation in which they were had). But that is exactly what Snow is also saying; and I am not here trying to defend Snow or Vygotsky, or both. But I already included a quotation by Snow where he describes aptitudes as having a "propaedeutic" character, not an accomplished aspect within a situation, but as a dispositional aspect that determines future situations, and so I don't see where the problem lies. I also emphasised that Snow refers to person-situation rather than person-environment, and I think that is important, for situations are unitary events, they have beginning and end, and can after-the-fact be called *this* or *that* situation; they therefore also may become *this* or *that* experience. There was a question, whether there were some thoughts around relations between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie". I think the points in common between Snow, Vygotsky, and Dewey were appropriate, for the "experienced" in "experienced thinkers" situates us in the realm of aptitude, of greater or lesser competence in performing some form of activity. I continue thinking that this line of thinking, even though not articulated in methodological terms, offers a way of addressing competence such that being experienced is not some internal attribute, nor an externally imposed one. I would like now to ask you, what are your thoughts on the relation between what Vera used to refer to as "experienced thinkers" and the concept of "perezhivanie"? Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 12 December 2017 00:03 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of different activities. To me, introducing the phrase "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a different activity context. In "The Problem of the Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by taking "person-environment" as a unit. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. > > Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). > > It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. > > Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely > in terms of person-environment unit."? > > Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. > Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a > perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of > formulation mystifying. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. >> >> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, >> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. >> >> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. >> >> Others? >> Alfredo >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >> >> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. >> >> >> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. >> >> >> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" >> >> >> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? >> >> >> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. >> >> >> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. >> >> >> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. >> >> >> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. >> >> >> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. >> >> >> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. >> >> >> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. >> >> >> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. >> >> >> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. >> >> >> Vera was excellent at that. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake >> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera >> >> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision >> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? >> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? >> RL >> >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >>> >>> >>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >>> >>> >>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >>> >>> >>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >>> no words? >>> >>> >>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >>> that the Old Greeks talked about. >>> >>> >>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >>> or less. >>> >>> >>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >>> >>> >>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >>> students, and even one another. >>> >>> >>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >>> meaning. >>> >>> >>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >>> be," might be on her family crest. >>> >>> >>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >>> be for us. >>> >>> >>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >>> that? Can it be replicated? >>> >>> >>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >>> there be enough room for so many of us? >>> >>> >>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >>> >>> >>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >>> introspection. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >>> socially, quietly, peacefully. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >>> feel she is with me still. >>> >>> I hope you feel that way too. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >>> >> -- >> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> Associate Professor >> Social Foundations of Education >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> Georgia Southern University >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >> 2017 >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >> Intellectual Genealogy. >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >> Dewey-*Democracy >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Tue Dec 12 03:02:03 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:02:03 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, (1) When non-Russian-speakers read that oft-quoted passage from "Environment," they tend to take it as *definitional* of perezhivanie. But a Russian-speaker already knows what perezhivanie means, and they read this as Vygotsky saying something *about* perezhivaniya. The outcome is two very different conceptions, one of which is actually quite incoherent. (2) Snow may be dealing with aptitudes as units, but if so he is working on a different method from Vygotsky. For us, the point is that perezhivanie is a form of activity, therefore it is not an abstraction; it is a whole. A "unit" must also be a "whole" for the method of analysis Vygotsky advocates. You are quote correct when you say that situations have a beginning and an end, and so therefore do perezhivaniya. But their affect on the personality is enduring and cumulative. Yes? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2017 9:20 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Andy, > > when Snow talks about aptitudes, he is also addressing personality as a whole, even though his field and focus is on learning and education. So, I agree with you "aptitude" is an abstraction from person and activity, but then again, if you hold it that perezhivanie is unit of personality (as you do in some of your writings), then we can as well say that "aptitudes" for Snow are a unit of personality, for it is as a myriad of such aptitudes that a person becomes and can be singularised as such across a life time. > > Vygotsky is quite clear when he writes that, perezhivanie, > "is a unit where, on the one hand, in and indivisible state, the environment is represented, i.e. that which is being experienced?a perezhivanie is always related to something which is found outside the person?and on the other hand, what is represented is how I, myself, am experiences this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the environmental characteristics are represented in an emotional experience" > > And so, if we obviate the name "perezhivanie", the unit he is describing quite explicitly is such that it has person and environment as its irreducible aspects; just as word meaning, as a unit of verbal thinking, has thinking and speech as its aspects. And so, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that: > > "Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by taking "person-environment" as a unit." > > Beside the point that I do not agree with you that "traumatic experiences" is the core of what Vygotsky was discussing, even though trauma may have been part of it, I assume that you mean that perezhivanija also have a beginning and an end, and so they carry on as having an impact in how future experiences are had (and not just the situation in which they were had). But that is exactly what Snow is also saying; and I am not here trying to defend Snow or Vygotsky, or both. But I already included a quotation by Snow where he describes aptitudes as having a "propaedeutic" character, not an accomplished aspect within a situation, but as a dispositional aspect that determines future situations, and so I don't see where the problem lies. I also emphasised that Snow refers to person-situation rather than person-environment, and I think that is important, for situations are unitary events, they have beginning and end, and can after-the-fact be called *this* or *that* situation; they therefore also may become *this* or *that* experience. > > There was a question, whether there were some thoughts around relations between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie". I think the points in common between Snow, Vygotsky, and Dewey were appropriate, for the "experienced" in "experienced thinkers" situates us in the realm of aptitude, of greater or lesser competence in performing some form of activity. I continue thinking that this line of thinking, even though not articulated in methodological terms, offers a way of addressing competence such that being experienced is not some internal attribute, nor an externally imposed one. I would like now to ask you, what are your thoughts on the relation between what Vera used to refer to as "experienced thinkers" and the concept of "perezhivanie"? > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 12 December 2017 00:03 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience > was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. >> >> Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). >> >> It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. >> >> Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >> >> Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely >> in terms of person-environment unit."? >> >> Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. >> Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a >> perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of >> formulation mystifying. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. >>> >>> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, >>> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. >>> >>> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. >>> >>> Others? >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >>> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >>> >>> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. >>> >>> >>> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. >>> >>> >>> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" >>> >>> >>> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? >>> >>> >>> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. >>> >>> >>> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. >>> >>> >>> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. >>> >>> >>> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. >>> >>> >>> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. >>> >>> >>> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. >>> >>> >>> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. >>> >>> >>> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. >>> >>> >>> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. >>> >>> >>> Vera was excellent at that. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake >>> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera >>> >>> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision >>> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? >>> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? >>> RL >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >>> >>>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >>>> >>>> >>>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >>>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >>>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >>>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >>>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >>>> >>>> >>>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >>>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >>>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >>>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >>>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >>>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >>>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >>>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >>>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >>>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >>>> no words? >>>> >>>> >>>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >>>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >>>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >>>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >>>> that the Old Greeks talked about. >>>> >>>> >>>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >>>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >>>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >>>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >>>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >>>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >>>> or less. >>>> >>>> >>>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >>>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >>>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >>>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >>>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >>>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >>>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >>>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >>>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >>>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >>>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >>>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >>>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >>>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >>>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >>>> students, and even one another. >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >>>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >>>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >>>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >>>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >>>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >>>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >>>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >>>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >>>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >>>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >>>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >>>> be," might be on her family crest. >>>> >>>> >>>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >>>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >>>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >>>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >>>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >>>> be for us. >>>> >>>> >>>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >>>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >>>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >>>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >>>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >>>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >>>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >>>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >>>> that? Can it be replicated? >>>> >>>> >>>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >>>> there be enough room for so many of us? >>>> >>>> >>>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >>>> >>>> >>>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >>>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >>>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >>>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >>>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >>>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >>>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >>>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >>>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >>>> introspection. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >>>> socially, quietly, peacefully. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >>>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >>>> feel she is with me still. >>>> >>>> I hope you feel that way too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Annalisa >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Social Foundations of Education >>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>> Georgia Southern University >>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >>> 2017 >>> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >>> Intellectual Genealogy. >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>> Dewey-*Democracy >>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>> >>> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 12 03:06:06 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:06:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no>, , <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1513076765957.58724@iped.uio.no> Hi Annalisa, reading your post, and mine and Andy's, I wonder whether we are not playing two games at the same: the one of consistent theory building, where we try to consistently use terms and concepts within a system of thought, and the one more explorative, speculative goal of discussing ideas on given topics. When I hear Robert raise the question on experienced thinkers and perezhivanie, I hear him asking in the more speculative rather than strictly scientific key. And so it is in that sense that I read your comments and they begin to make sense. Specially the example on photography. But if I were to take the former approach, I would have troubles?as Andy Blunden has had with me?with the way you use such terms as "affordance", "thinker" and "unit" together. Aptitudes are units (which denote unity of person-situation) for Snow because he is studying aptitude, person-environment fits as part of given disciplinary practices. When you suggest affordance as unit, then I anticipate Andy (or myself) asking, "a unit of what?". The same when you refer to perezhivanie as "the discovery of the affordance", where I assume you refer to a connection between perezhivanie and a raised awareness, but I am unsure about the whole, cause there seems to be work towards a system of concepts, but it is so open that at this point, I am really unsure how to deal with that. But your example of taking a photography, as it touches upon what it means to become an experienced photographer (and so an experienced thinker), that I can relate to and engage. And I was thinking that becoming a good photographer has all to do with the sensuous activity of coming into organic correspondence with a camera and a gazing. Or becoming a gazing that is irreducible to a person-camera and a landscape. In the experience of becoming an experienced photographer, the aspects you mention on calibration of light, aperture, speed, etc... and the other aspects you mention on aesthetic aspects of the image... Obviously both aspects are separated only in an act of thinking that is not itself the one of taking a photography; for it seems that the intertwining of these two is what makes a photography a proper photography and not a failed shot with a camera. If we now think of the progress from first holding a camera to shooting a competent shot, we are bringing in lots of questions of instruction and discipline, where questions of affordance, environment, etc are all abstractions, I think, and we begin to need to attend more to what is it that field of practice where there is such a thing as a good and a bad picture... Huge conversation ahead! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 11 December 2017 17:39 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Hi Alfredo, As I was reading your posts and saw your description of Snow's notion of aptitude, as a unit, it reminded me of Gibson's affordance, but in a particular context or specific utility, in that it has specific references. (I also wondered if the list has had previous discussion of perezhivanie and affordances, together?). If these words are the same elephant, but seen from different angles, with differeing emphases, then perhaps aptitude distinguishes itself because it considers time, since what came before and what comes after is part of the continuity as Dewey described. Time is essential to understand or just perceive change. What was interesting to me is to think of an affordance as a unit, which is a different ontological aspect I'd not considered. To me, the thingness of the affordance is different than its ordinance (or co-ordinance) with the environment and the thinker (as a unit). I also didn't understand why it would be necessary to separate effectivities from the affordance? An affordance IS the effectivity in the environment by the thinker, isn't it? An affordance determines successful performance based upon the capability of the thinker in the particular environment. Perezhivanie would have more to do with the discovery of the affordance or interaction with the affordance (hence the frustration or struggle suggested by perezhivanie) inclusive of with the emotional content involved at the precise moment (of learning). Yes? In photography, we have ways of gauging light as it interacts with the plane of the film in the camera. This is performed by choice of the f-stop (the diameter of the aperture of the lens) and the shutter speed (various fractions of a second). To properly expose the film, the skill of the photographer must succeed by intuiting quickly the nature of the light in the environment, to remembering of the kind camera one is using, the type of lens, and the speed of film. How one combines all this together is controlled more by the amount of light there is: If it is a stark bright day then all the choices made lead by that strong sunlight: narrow the aperture or shorten the shutter exposure or both. In the case of low-light conditions, say inside at nighttime, widen the aperture or lengthen the shutter exposure, or both. But this is only mention of the physics dealing with the light sensitivity of the film at the time of exposure. There is more to taking a photograph than that. The content of the image and it's emotional impact, results from the manner the photographer framed the picture and is entirely subjective, it based upon when the photographer decides to squeeze the shutter release, but it is also determined by happenstance and the struggle that the photographer must entertain to decide where to position herself to capture a desired photograph based upon what is in front of the camera. In wartime it's even more critical, if there are landmines or flying bullets (one cannot shoot a gun and a camera at the same time). I wondered if the analogy of the photographer might help in this discussion as a way to think about experienced thinkers and perezhivanie. As well as your introduction the terms of effectivity and affordance into the conversation. Aptitude does seem an odd way to name a unit. I'd have to get used to thinking about it that way, but it sort of makes sense, if I were to equate aptitude as a way to measure whether a photographer had the aptitude to take good photographs compared to great ones. A lot of that ability depends upon the experience of the photographer leading up to that decisive moment to take the photograph. Still, I feel pertaining to experienced thinking, timing is critical, just like a great photographer taking a great photograph. It isn't merely sensing what is in the environment but knowing how to orient to it and when to take the photograph at the precise optimum moment. For what that is worth? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:07 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit."? Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of formulation mystifying. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. > > Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, > "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > > And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > > Others? > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > > > He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > > > Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" > > > After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > > > The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > > > I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > > > The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. > > > For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > > > Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > > > This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. > > > I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > > > Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > > > So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. > > > Vera was excellent at that. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > > I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > RL > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >> >> >> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >> >> >> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >> >> >> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >> no words? >> >> >> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >> that the Old Greeks talked about. >> >> >> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >> or less. >> >> >> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >> >> >> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >> students, and even one another. >> >> >> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >> meaning. >> >> >> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >> be," might be on her family crest. >> >> >> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >> be for us. >> >> >> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >> that? Can it be replicated? >> >> >> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >> there be enough room for so many of us? >> >> >> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >> >> >> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >> introspection. >> >> >> >> >> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >> socially, quietly, peacefully. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >> feel she is with me still. >> >> I hope you feel that way too. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 12 03:07:09 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:07:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1513076829744.92478@iped.uio.no> Yes! :) Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 12 December 2017 12:02 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Alfredo, (1) When non-Russian-speakers read that oft-quoted passage from "Environment," they tend to take it as *definitional* of perezhivanie. But a Russian-speaker already knows what perezhivanie means, and they read this as Vygotsky saying something *about* perezhivaniya. The outcome is two very different conceptions, one of which is actually quite incoherent. (2) Snow may be dealing with aptitudes as units, but if so he is working on a different method from Vygotsky. For us, the point is that perezhivanie is a form of activity, therefore it is not an abstraction; it is a whole. A "unit" must also be a "whole" for the method of analysis Vygotsky advocates. You are quote correct when you say that situations have a beginning and an end, and so therefore do perezhivaniya. But their affect on the personality is enduring and cumulative. Yes? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2017 9:20 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Andy, > > when Snow talks about aptitudes, he is also addressing personality as a whole, even though his field and focus is on learning and education. So, I agree with you "aptitude" is an abstraction from person and activity, but then again, if you hold it that perezhivanie is unit of personality (as you do in some of your writings), then we can as well say that "aptitudes" for Snow are a unit of personality, for it is as a myriad of such aptitudes that a person becomes and can be singularised as such across a life time. > > Vygotsky is quite clear when he writes that, perezhivanie, > "is a unit where, on the one hand, in and indivisible state, the environment is represented, i.e. that which is being experienced?a perezhivanie is always related to something which is found outside the person?and on the other hand, what is represented is how I, myself, am experiences this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the environmental characteristics are represented in an emotional experience" > > And so, if we obviate the name "perezhivanie", the unit he is describing quite explicitly is such that it has person and environment as its irreducible aspects; just as word meaning, as a unit of verbal thinking, has thinking and speech as its aspects. And so, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that: > > "Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by taking "person-environment" as a unit." > > Beside the point that I do not agree with you that "traumatic experiences" is the core of what Vygotsky was discussing, even though trauma may have been part of it, I assume that you mean that perezhivanija also have a beginning and an end, and so they carry on as having an impact in how future experiences are had (and not just the situation in which they were had). But that is exactly what Snow is also saying; and I am not here trying to defend Snow or Vygotsky, or both. But I already included a quotation by Snow where he describes aptitudes as having a "propaedeutic" character, not an accomplished aspect within a situation, but as a dispositional aspect that determines future situations, and so I don't see where the problem lies. I also emphasised that Snow refers to person-situation rather than person-environment, and I think that is important, for situations are unitary events, they have beginning and end, and can after-the-fact be called *this* or *that* situation; they therefore also may become *this* or *that* experience. > > There was a question, whether there were some thoughts around relations between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie". I think the points in common between Snow, Vygotsky, and Dewey were appropriate, for the "experienced" in "experienced thinkers" situates us in the realm of aptitude, of greater or lesser competence in performing some form of activity. I continue thinking that this line of thinking, even though not articulated in methodological terms, offers a way of addressing competence such that being experienced is not some internal attribute, nor an externally imposed one. I would like now to ask you, what are your thoughts on the relation between what Vera used to refer to as "experienced thinkers" and the concept of "perezhivanie"? > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 12 December 2017 00:03 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience > was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. >> >> Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). >> >> It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. >> >> Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >> >> Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely >> in terms of person-environment unit."? >> >> Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. >> Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a >> perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of >> formulation mystifying. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. >>> >>> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, >>> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. >>> >>> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. >>> >>> Others? >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >>> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie >>> >>> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. >>> >>> >>> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. >>> >>> >>> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" >>> >>> >>> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? >>> >>> >>> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. >>> >>> >>> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. >>> >>> >>> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. >>> >>> >>> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. >>> >>> >>> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. >>> >>> >>> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. >>> >>> >>> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. >>> >>> >>> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. >>> >>> >>> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. >>> >>> >>> Vera was excellent at that. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake >>> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera >>> >>> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision >>> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? >>> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? >>> RL >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >>> >>>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >>>> >>>> >>>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >>>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >>>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >>>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >>>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >>>> >>>> >>>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >>>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >>>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >>>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >>>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >>>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >>>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >>>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >>>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >>>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >>>> no words? >>>> >>>> >>>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >>>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >>>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >>>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >>>> that the Old Greeks talked about. >>>> >>>> >>>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >>>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >>>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >>>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >>>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >>>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >>>> or less. >>>> >>>> >>>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >>>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >>>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >>>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >>>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >>>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >>>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >>>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >>>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >>>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >>>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >>>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >>>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >>>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >>>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >>>> students, and even one another. >>>> >>>> >>>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >>>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >>>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >>>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >>>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >>>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >>>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >>>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >>>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >>>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >>>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >>>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >>>> be," might be on her family crest. >>>> >>>> >>>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >>>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >>>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >>>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >>>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >>>> be for us. >>>> >>>> >>>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >>>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >>>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >>>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >>>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >>>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >>>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >>>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >>>> that? Can it be replicated? >>>> >>>> >>>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >>>> there be enough room for so many of us? >>>> >>>> >>>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >>>> >>>> >>>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >>>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >>>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >>>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >>>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >>>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >>>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >>>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >>>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >>>> introspection. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >>>> socially, quietly, peacefully. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >>>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >>>> feel she is with me still. >>>> >>>> I hope you feel that way too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Annalisa >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Social Foundations of Education >>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>> Georgia Southern University >>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, >>> 2017 >>> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An >>> Intellectual Genealogy. >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 >>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>> Dewey-*Democracy >>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>> >>> > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Tue Dec 12 04:35:49 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:35:49 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> <1513074055352.13817@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: It seems to me that not perezhivanie is the big problem, but consciousness, perezhivanie of perezhivanie (vol. 4). Perezhivanie was the take up of Erlebnis/Erleben, not Erfahrung (experience), and Erlebnis is always of something, thus the person-environment unit. Again, consciousness is inherently historical, as perezhivanie of perezhivanie requires the presence of the past. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Andy, > > when Snow talks about aptitudes, he is also addressing personality as a > whole, even though his field and focus is on learning and education. So, I > agree with you "aptitude" is an abstraction from person and activity, but > then again, if you hold it that perezhivanie is unit of personality (as you > do in some of your writings), then we can as well say that "aptitudes" for > Snow are a unit of personality, for it is as a myriad of such aptitudes > that a person becomes and can be singularised as such across a life time. > > Vygotsky is quite clear when he writes that, perezhivanie, > "is a unit where, on the one hand, in and indivisible state, the > environment is represented, i.e. that which is being experienced?a > perezhivanie is always related to something which is found outside the > person?and on the other hand, what is represented is how I, myself, am > experiences this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the > environmental characteristics are represented in an emotional experience" > > And so, if we obviate the name "perezhivanie", the unit he is describing > quite explicitly is such that it has person and environment as its > irreducible aspects; just as word meaning, as a unit of verbal thinking, > has thinking and speech as its aspects. And so, I am not sure I understand > what you mean when you say that: > > "Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic experiences impact on the > development of the entire person, that is, they will impact on a person's > actions in different environments, beyond that in which the traumatic > experience was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out by > taking "person-environment" as a unit." > > Beside the point that I do not agree with you that "traumatic experiences" > is the core of what Vygotsky was discussing, even though trauma may have > been part of it, I assume that you mean that perezhivanija also have a > beginning and an end, and so they carry on as having an impact in how > future experiences are had (and not just the situation in which they were > had). But that is exactly what Snow is also saying; and I am not here > trying to defend Snow or Vygotsky, or both. But I already included a > quotation by Snow where he describes aptitudes as having a "propaedeutic" > character, not an accomplished aspect within a situation, but as a > dispositional aspect that determines future situations, and so I don't see > where the problem lies. I also emphasised that Snow refers to > person-situation rather than person-environment, and I think that is > important, for situations are unitary events, they have beginning and end, > and can after-the-fact be called *this* or *that* situation; they therefore > also may become *this* or *that* experience. > > There was a question, whether there were some thoughts around relations > between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie". I think the points in > common between Snow, Vygotsky, and Dewey were appropriate, for the > "experienced" in "experienced thinkers" situates us in the realm of > aptitude, of greater or lesser competence in performing some form of > activity. I continue thinking that this line of thinking, even though not > articulated in methodological terms, offers a way of addressing competence > such that being experienced is not some internal attribute, nor an > externally imposed one. I would like now to ask you, what are your thoughts > on the relation between what Vera used to refer to as "experienced > thinkers" and the concept of "perezhivanie"? > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 12 December 2017 00:03 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Yes, I presumed that that was what was intended - i.e., that > a person manifests different aptitudes in the context of > different activities. To me, introducing the phrase > "person-environment units" is not helpful here. "Aptitude" > is an abstraction from "person" and "activity" but one which > forms a normal part of our perception and cognition of our > fellow humans, and it probably takes us many years to see > that a person is not the same person, when they are put in a > different activity context. In "The Problem of the > Environment," Vygotsky deal with the fact that traumatic > experiences impact on the development of the entire person, > that is, they will impact on a person's actions in different > environments, beyond that in which the traumatic experience > was survived, and that is something which would be ruled out > by taking "person-environment" as a unit. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/12/2017 2:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional > perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units > are therefore units of Aptitude. > > > > Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list > of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for > all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally > important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of > affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" > (Snow, 1992, p. 25). > > > > It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was > saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an > orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit > particular to a given historically developed (in this case, > person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if > only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like > Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas > seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with > regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying > intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a > unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and > situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together > what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written > "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. > > > > Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. > Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > > > Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely > > in terms of person-environment unit."? > > > > Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. > > Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a > > perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of > > formulation mystifying. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year ( > http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper > that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get > better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine > trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is > how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the > work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a > definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of > person-environment unit. > >> > >> Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that > influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not > merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed > as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, > 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred > to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience > enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this > modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent > experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, > together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, > asserted that, > >> "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless > held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention > to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and > can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's > notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on > intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means > becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > >> > >> And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and > "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is > she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking > further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has > become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say > math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > >> > >> Others? > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > >> Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > >> > >> Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but > before I knew it would be. > >> > >> > >> He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > >> > >> > >> Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from > there!" > >> > >> > >> After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... > the famous Russian psychologist? > >> > >> > >> The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > >> > >> > >> I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being > "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook > Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > >> > >> > >> The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of > perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to > instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment > for teaching and learning. > >> > >> > >> For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as > a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was > a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate > why Vygotsky used that word. > >> > >> > >> Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been > used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I > did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may > be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced > apology if that is the case. > >> > >> > >> This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening > concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, > and tension between the media, the president and the people. > >> > >> > >> I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the > American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of > perezhivanie going on. > >> > >> > >> Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > >> > >> > >> So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an > experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words > appropriately. > >> > >> > >> Vera was excellent at that. > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> > >> Annalisa > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Robert Lake > >> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > >> > >> I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > >> or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > >> Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > >> RL > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > >> > >>> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, > >>> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that > >>> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the > >>> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and > populated > >>> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. > >>> > >>> > >>> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world > she > >>> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world > >>> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than > many of > >>> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity > >>> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a > >>> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther > >>> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. > She > >>> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so > >>> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent > >>> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist > of > >>> no words? > >>> > >>> > >>> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit > of > >>> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion > is > >>> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work > >>> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the > arete > >>> that the Old Greeks talked about. > >>> > >>> > >>> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if > she > >>> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black > and > >>> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its > very > >>> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from > a > >>> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but > was > >>> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five > words > >>> or less. > >>> > >>> > >>> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us > can > >>> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even > chafing > >>> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a > >>> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, > given > >>> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because > in > >>> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each > stretch > >>> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better > >>> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. > >>> > >>> > >>> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world > >>> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to > >>> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that > many > >>> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her > >>> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in > order > >>> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her > wisdom. > >>> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you > has a > >>> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate > >>> students, and even one another. > >>> > >>> > >>> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip > on > >>> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support > other > >>> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was > not > >>> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles > when it > >>> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She > was > >>> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we > >>> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you > get my > >>> meaning. > >>> > >>> > >>> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it > was > >>> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for > >>> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed > between > >>> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is > >>> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all > >>> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling > collaborator > >>> be," might be on her family crest. > >>> > >>> > >>> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being > one > >>> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she > >>> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, > so > >>> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in > >>> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it > will > >>> be for us. > >>> > >>> > >>> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the > >>> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such > >>> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a > >>> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative > accomplishment; > >>> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its > >>> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly > >>> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human > endeavor? > >>> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the > recipe for > >>> that? Can it be replicated? > >>> > >>> > >>> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? > Would > >>> there be enough room for so many of us? > >>> > >>> > >>> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of > hers. > >>> > >>> > >>> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with > >>> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word > "genius" > >>> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist > >>> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while > enthralled in > >>> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera > preferred > >>> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and > so > >>> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your > vocabularies, in > >>> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her > >>> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her > >>> introspection. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond > >>> socially, quietly, peacefully. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this > unique > >>> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but > I > >>> feel she is with me still. > >>> > >>> I hope you feel that way too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kindest regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >> Associate Professor > >> Social Foundations of Education > >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >> Georgia Southern University > >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >> Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* > vol.39, > >> 2017 > >> Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An > >> Intellectual Genealogy. > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 > >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > must be > >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >> Dewey-*Democracy > >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >> > >> > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 12 05:08:28 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:08:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <38318A58-8024-4AA0-8779-AE9B3F1B58E4@gmail.com> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no> <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no> , <38318A58-8024-4AA0-8779-AE9B3F1B58E4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1513084108490.21590@iped.uio.no> Henry, thanks so much for sharing this with the list. This is very much appreciated. I am unsure about the word "trauma", which connects with wound... Callouses are also formed in the fingers when you play guitar for a long time, such that playing at greater paces and levels of complexity is accomplished seamlessly; old vintage guitar necks are also very much appreciated among players, and even re-produced by manufacturers that simulate long-term use in their new production models, for the playing experience becomes more fluent. The "marks" that Vera's life left on the people that so beautifully rendered tribute in the words they shared, may also be seen as such bodily adaptations, rather than as wounds that have left a scar that you may look at and be reminded of some past event, as forms of adapting to future situations in which your very ways of fitting (aptitude?, of actively adapting?) into future situations are shaped by the fact of having co-operated, or corresponded with a person. Thanks again for sharing this, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of HENRY SHONERD Sent: 12 December 2017 01:29 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Thanks to Robert for asking this question posed in this thread, and to Christopher Shank for Vera?s obituary. I have been thinking about what constitutes trauma. A single traumatic event may be responded to in very different ways by different people. PTSD for some, much less harm for others. Also, a single event may not be traumatic for a given person, but over time, like water torture, similar events may take a big toll on that person. Consider domestic abuse and other kinds of bullying. Vygotsky?s example of the severity of effect on three children of having an alcoholic mother seems like this. And how does teaching and learning play into resilience, both for big and small insults? And what part does teaching, in the broadest sense, not just in school, play in what comes from the expert, in the academic sense, and what comes from peers who have learned what they know ?in the streets? so to speak? Of course a teacher can be both expert and peer, which may be the best support. I am going to make a leap and share with the chat something that was posted by a colleague of mine at the University of New Mexico who attended Vera?s funeral. Vera was a private person, so might have been uncomfortable sharing this. But I think that the attached notes on things said of Vera at her funeral capture much better than my words what an experienced thinker in the academic sense could also be a person who has responded to trauma in a most courageous way. Someone who might help us deal with the trauma of everyday life. Henry From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 13 02:05:59 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:05:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now open access at the MCA T&F pages. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over in the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of transition of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings about child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether those interested in adult development find the contributions present in the article relevant/appealing/problematic... Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Steemed xmca'ers, the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's writings. I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! The whole issue is published here: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. Alfredo From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 03:08:26 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:08:26 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo: Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and consequently abstract. c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the current Educational Philosophical and Theory... Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal to me: 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back on itself.... David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over in > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of transition > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings about > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether those > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > for discussion > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > writings. > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > The whole issue is published here: > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > Alfredo > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 13 03:28:58 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:28:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1513164538275.54881@iped.uio.no> Wonderful, David. Yes, there are at least three threads, which you've connected very nicely to already developing threads in this list. Thanks for that. Also, a note on participation. I know, for I have experienced it myself, many may feel that these areas that David suggests are territory of only few skilled or experienced scholars/thinkers, such as David, Michael, or Sasha, who have already given it a lot of though. And so you may be afraid to say something irrelevant or stupid and not feel like contributing. First, there may be many more than three threads, and so please, I encourage you to open a fourth, a fifth or whatever number you want, as long as you feel this is an opportunity for learning. Second, listening/lurking is great and an opportunity for learning. The greatest opportunities for learning, however, come when the risks are taken of performing as if we were two inches taller than we are. Gert Biesta speaks of "The Beautiful Risk of Education". Biesta reminds us that teachers too take the risk every time they address a question or request from less experienced learner. Learning is risky for all, and beautifully so. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 13 December 2017 12:08 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Alfredo: Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and consequently abstract. c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the current Educational Philosophical and Theory... Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal to me: 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back on itself.... David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over in > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of transition > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings about > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether those > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > for discussion > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > writings. > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > The whole issue is published here: > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > Alfredo > > From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 06:49:44 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:49:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello Alfredo, could you send me Michael's response please as I can't access it. I've got David's commentary. Many thanks, James On 7 December 2017 at 18:33, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > writings. > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > The whole issue is published here: > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > Alfredo > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 08:37:19 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:37:19 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi all, The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they always belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking and Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence of *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe theory*. This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in bullet (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is about a way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to be developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological steps to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development to infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a qualitatively new form? This is the question the article answers. I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even scientists having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing what they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German Ideology*). In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, too] and *The Philosophy of the Present*). I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given the long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Alfredo: > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > consequently abstract. > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > to me: > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > on itself.... > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > in > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > transition > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > about > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > those > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > > for discussion > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > the > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > writings. > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > right > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > and > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > for > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 09:12:04 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:12:04 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: and I forgot to refer to the point Vygotsky makes (*Thinking and Speech*): "Thought is not expressed but completed in the word" (p. 250). Merleau-Ponty (*Phenomenology*) also makes this point; so does Levinas (in 'Le Dit et le Dire' or *Otherwise than Being*); and so does Bakhtin ( *Philosophy*, 1993), in the distinction between Kantian "theoretical cognition" and participatory thinking. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas > to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, > are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they always > belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking > and Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > > So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence > of *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe > theory*. This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in bullet > (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is about a > way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to > be developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological steps > to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development to > infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a qualitatively > new form? This is the question the article answers. > > I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even scientists > having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing what > they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > > That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in > Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German Ideology*). > In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the > future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, too] > and *The Philosophy of the Present*). > > I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given > the long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >> Alfredo: >> >> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. >> >> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided >> Vygotsky >> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky >> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a >> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress >> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as >> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative >> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist >> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. >> >> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This >> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also >> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the >> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that >> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and >> more >> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and >> consequently abstract. >> >> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean >> for >> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the >> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of >> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness >> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at >> all; >> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially >> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a >> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the >> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... >> >> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, >> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 >> >> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal >> to me: >> >> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation >> and >> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially >> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) >> it >> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. >> >> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, >> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back >> on itself.... >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >> >> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> wrote: >> >> > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now >> > open access at the MCA T&F pages. >> > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 >> > >> > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. >> > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already >> > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over >> in >> > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and >> > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of >> transition >> > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings >> about >> > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges >> > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I >> > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether >> those >> > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the >> > article relevant/appealing/problematic... >> > >> > Alfredo >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article >> > for discussion >> > >> > Steemed xmca'ers, >> > >> > >> > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected >> article >> > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by >> Wolff-Michael >> > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". >> > >> > >> > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief >> > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion >> > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in >> the >> > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's >> > writings. >> > >> > >> > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques >> to >> > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings >> > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access >> right >> > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >> > >> > >> > The whole issue is published here: >> > >> > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >> > >> > >> > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, >> and >> > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy >> bringing >> > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have >> for >> > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on >> in >> > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >> > >> > >> > Alfredo >> > >> > >> > > From lemke.jay@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 13:23:22 2017 From: lemke.jay@gmail.com (Jay Lemke) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:23:22 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just now reading of Vera's passing. So sad she has left us, but so happy in remembering all my wonderful conversations with her in so many places around the world. I learned a lot from her about the less visible and more implicit aspects of creativity and collaboration and how to think with and about them. I also learned about compassion, and about the challenges faced by even the most brilliant women in a male-arrogant academia. People who never met her can be grateful for her life and her work. For those who were lucky enough to know her, we have been lucky indeed. JAY. Jay Lemke Professor Emeritus City University of New York www.jaylemke.com On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake wrote: > Dear XMCA Family, > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > experienced a stroke. > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information and > an obituary as > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, Teaching, > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > mentioned above. > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > *Robert Lake* > From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Dec 13 13:33:11 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:33:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513076765957.58724@iped.uio.no> References: <72BF16C9-1BB8-45CF-BCE2-1969F7A9D473@gmail.com> <82533b4e-8b0c-2777-b238-d6745b114ebd@mira.net> <1512979286195.65813@iped.uio.no>, , <1513004863284.66083@iped.uio.no>, , <1513076765957.58724@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Alfredo, Thank you for your post in reply to mine. It is the case that sometimes thinking takes place while writing and what is written only makes sense to the one who wrote it. I'm not sure if that would qualify as inner speech, but it could. I usually feel that inner speech is present when words are missing making them ungrammatical, or jumps are made in logic, perhaps. I may have done that in my post. In reply to the different forms of thinking about the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie, one being logical-rational (what you are calling the theory-building), or creative insight, or possibly metaphorical reasoning (what you are calling explorative and speculative thinking), I don't consider one to be better than the other, just different ways of getting to the same place, such as when traversing a map with one's finger. Since the map itself and its representative quality are not the terrain, it being a map, an abstraction of the terrain. My sense however is that the experienced thinker makes leaps much faster because the reasoning (theory building?) used to come to prior conclusions has become automaticized (is "automaticized" a word?), like a well-trained muscle. It is as if the path has become mapped as a recognized/recognizable pattern, a condensed representation of the step-by-step process posed by theory-buliding. Recall that the word-meaning of metaphor is "map over" or "carry over," that "this" is meant by "that," and not "this" is like "that," which would make it a simile. In any case, both are legitimate forms of thinking. BTW, Vera promoted cognitive pluralism too (Please see her paper here: http://www.unm.edu/~vygotsky/cogpl.pdf) If I consider the act of searching, there are different ways we search: we search by casting a wide glance until someone or something is recognized (from the outside in or "top-down"), or we might search one face at a time, or one item at a time until we find what we seek (from the inside out or "bottom-up"). I don't think anything is gained to try to determine which form of search is better if good results are gained in the end. But getting back to the question about perezhivanie and experienced thinkers, the more I thought about it the more I feel the metaphor of the experienced photographer as the metaphor for an experienced thinker is apt in terms of illustrating the relationship between an affordance and perezhivanie. When you asked, "An affordance is a unit of what?" I would say it is a unit created by activity, activity being the whole, as set out by the person and the environment (or when considering wildlife, the animal and the habitat). It is a unit of perception-in-action-with-the-action. There may well indeed be different word-meanings our community has assigned to the word "affordance." I myself adopt the meaning I think Gibson meant when he coined the word. Though I know the word has become nuanced in ways that I'm not confident Gibson would appreciate. At the same time, words have a way of changing their meanings, and there isn't much we can do about that, except to struggle for clarity of meaning. So for what it is worth, when I use the word affordance, I see it as a unification between the person and the environment, or also it can mean a unification between the person and the tool. However, as I write this, I can see a constancy to add a third "meaning" which would be the unification between the person who uses a tool in a particular environment. Imagine a pilot flying a plane in the sky, or landing the plane on a runway. And so we proceed to the photographer example, as a person who uses a camera (as a tool of image making) in an environment, whether to document a child's birthday party, a couple's wedding, a world news event, a sunset at the beach, or an occupation that seems a fairly recent use of photography, to photograph the meal one orders at a newly-opened restaurant to post on facebook (for the record, I do not participate in this kind of activity.) :) It wasn't until I learnt the more common meaning of the word "perezhivanie" in Russian, means "frustration" that I held a new insight to the word (and possibly how Vygotsky came to use this word, given the Marxist viewpoint he held). It was then I saw a possible connection between affordance and perezhivanie as pertaining to search and discovery, as well as its connection to the element of time. An experienced thinker has had practice from previous thinking about problems such that certain pathways of discovery or cogitation have come to be more fruitful than others. One experience of perezhivanie is different than another experience of perezhivanie, even if the environment is the same, the person is the same, the tools are the same. The only difference is expertise or perhaps this is where your aptitude-units come into play. For example, if I am lost in a new city without a map, the perezhavanie is more pronouced and marked negatively especially if it is getting dark and I am alone. But if I have a map and a native dweller comes by and helps me with directions, the perezhavanie will be marked with some relief and satisfaction. At some point the perezhivanie (in terms of frustration) will lesson to the point my familiarity with the city becomes more confident and comfortable and so perezhivanie when walking around my new city may instead be one of discovery and curiosity, a welcome sort of frustration as I may want to get lost on purpose, just to see what is there. This presupposes that I have the word-meaning of perezhivanie correct, if there is a correct word-meaning to be had here. But for now, let's just say this word-meaning has allowed me more access than I thought I had before concerning the concept of perezhivanie in regard to instruction. When I'd said that there was a time factor, this is to include the time it takes to be frustrated in a task, if I might use "frustrated" as a neutral word say the way the word "challenge" is used. For the experienced thinker, there might be mental "calluses," or there might be the intelligence/expertise to avoid mental tar-pits and to seek easier pathways that an un-experienced thinker might not know to avoid. In the same way, I think about the relationship of time with perezhivanie that I might consider time has with cognition. Cognition can be instantaneous or it can be ripe from long spells of turning ideas over and over. But time is still an important part of the experience of cognition. And similarly so I might say is the case with perezhivanie, however the emotional element is there as well, which is also experienced in time, and what comes before and what comes after are especially important from the aspect of feeling. Although I am not a neuroscientist, I wonder if it is the emotion that helps to map affordances in the mind, so that during future experiences there is the familiarity from the learned activity over time and repetition. Damasio claims that feeling comes before thought and we require feeling *to think*. This seems to support the concept of perezhivanie (if I understand its word-meaning correctly). If the activity/thought has a pleasurable content, there is a seeking of that same desirable experience, just as much as a dread if it is not pleasurable. For an experienced thinker, the emotional aspect can be recalled, but is not necessary and can be bypassed, particularly and perhaps if the frustration was hard-witnessed, but the outcome was a victory. But for a less experienced thinker, or a person with more traumatic emotional content arising from an activity, there is no means to circumnavigate the emotional content, particularly if that emotional experience possesses a negative content and a despairing outcome. Hence experiences of PTSD, a scratch in the vinyl record of emotional memory and re-lived perezhivanie overwhelming re-lived cognition. When you say the photographer and camera come into an "organic correspondence" with the camera, I would say that the photographer and camera have come into a variety of affordances, of a kind, in the sense that the shutter release was made for human fingers to squeeze, and the viewfinder was made for human eyes to see through. The affordances do not arise as units until the human interacts with the camera. The affordance of the finger/shutter release and the affordance of the eye/viewfinder are units that make up the activity of taking a picture, or more broadly "photography". When you mentioned, "for it seems that the intertwining of these two is what makes a photography a proper photography and not a failed shot with a camera," with the two being the craft of photography and the aesthetic sense of photography both are necessary units to creating a great photograph? Yes, this does pertain to cultural practices, because the aesthetic of what makes an image interesting in meaning has to do with the larger culture one lives in. In earlier contact with photography and aboriginal people, the photograph might be seen as a theft of a person's spirit, in more modern times, it might be a representation of a body shape that is unattainable. The photograph as an image has a meaning that creates an affordance in terms of how it interacts with the culture, but that affordance is on a image-meaning level, not a physical level, and that's where I think perezhivanie, and its emotional content become interesting, when considering an image and what its significance is to me. So that's that for now. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:06 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Hi Annalisa, reading your post, and mine and Andy's, I wonder whether we are not playing two games at the same: the one of consistent theory building, where we try to consistently use terms and concepts within a system of thought, and the one more explorative, speculative goal of discussing ideas on given topics. When I hear Robert raise the question on experienced thinkers and perezhivanie, I hear him asking in the more speculative rather than strictly scientific key. And so it is in that sense that I read your comments and they begin to make sense. Specially the example on photography. But if I were to take the former approach, I would have troubles?as Andy Blunden has had with me?with the way you use such terms as "affordance", "thinker" and "unit" together. Aptitudes are units (which denote unity of person-situation) for Snow because he is studying aptitude, person-environment fits as part of given disciplinary practices. When you suggest affordance as unit, then I anticipate Andy (or myself ) asking, "a unit of what?". The same when you refer to perezhivanie as "the discovery of the affordance", where I assume you refer to a connection between perezhivanie and a raised awareness, but I am unsure about the whole, cause there seems to be work towards a system of concepts, but it is so open that at this point, I am really unsure how to deal with that. But your example of taking a photography, as it touches upon what it means to become an experienced photographer (and so an experienced thinker), that I can relate to and engage. And I was thinking that becoming a good photographer has all to do with the sensuous activity of coming into organic correspondence with a camera and a gazing. Or becoming a gazing that is irreducible to a person-camera and a landscape. In the experience of becoming an experienced photographer, the aspects you mention on calibration of light, aperture, speed, etc... and the other aspects you mention on aesthetic aspects of the image... Obviously both aspects are separated only in an act of thinking that is not itself the one of taking a photography; for it seems that the intertwining of these two is what makes a photography a proper photography and not a failed shot with a camera. If we now think of the progress from first holding a camera to shooting a competent shot, we are bringing in lots of questions of instruction and discipline, where questions of affordance, environment, etc are all abstractions, I think, and we begin to need to attend more to what is it that field of practice where there is such a thing as a good and a bad picture... Huge conversation ahead! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 11 December 2017 17:39 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Hi Alfredo, As I was reading your posts and saw your description of Snow's notion of aptitude, as a unit, it reminded me of Gibson's affordance, but in a particular context or specific utility, in that it has specific references. (I also wondered if the list has had previous discussion of perezhivanie and affordances, together?). If these words are the same elephant, but seen from different angles, with differeing emphases, then perhaps aptitude distinguishes itself because it considers time, since what came before and what comes after is part of the continuity as Dewey described. Time is essential to understand or just perceive change. What was interesting to me is to think of an affordance as a unit, which is a different ontological aspect I'd not considered. To me, the thingness of the affordance is different than its ordinance (or co-ordinance) with the environment and the thinker (as a unit). I also didn't understand why it would be necessary to separate effectivities from the affordance? An affordance IS the effectivity in the environment by the thinker, isn't it? An affordance determines successful performance based upon the capability of the thinker in the particular environment. Perezhivanie would have more to do with the discovery of the affordance or interaction with the affordance (hence the frustration or struggle suggested by perezhivanie) inclusive of with the emotional content involved at the precise moment (of learning). Yes? In photography, we have ways of gauging light as it interacts with the plane of the film in the camera. This is performed by choice of the f-stop (the diameter of the aperture of the lens) and the shutter speed (various fractions of a second). To properly expose the film, the skill of the photographer must succeed by intuiting quickly the nature of the light in the environment, to remembering of the kind camera one is using, the type of lens, and the speed of film. How one combines all this together is controlled more by the amount of light there is: If it is a stark bright day then all the choices made lead by that strong sunlight: narrow the aperture or shorten the shutter exposure or both. In the case of low-light conditions, say inside at nighttime, widen the aperture or lengthen the shutter exposure, or both. But this is only mention of the physics dealing with the light sensitivity of the film at the time of exposure. There is more to taking a photograph than that. The content of the image and it's emotional impact, results from the manner the photographer framed the picture and is entirely subjective, it based upon when the photographer decides to squeeze the shutter release, but it is also determined by happenstance and the struggle that the photographer must entertain to decide where to position herself to capture a desired photograph based upon what is in front of the camera. In wartime it's even more critical, if there are landmines or flying bullets (one cannot shoot a gun and a camera at the same time). I wondered if the analogy of the photographer might help in this discussion as a way to think about experienced thinkers and perezhivanie. As well as your introduction the terms of effectivity and affordance into the conversation. Aptitude does seem an odd way to name a unit. I'd have to get used to thinking about it that way, but it sort of makes sense, if I were to equate aptitude as a way to measure whether a photographer had the aptitude to take good photographs compared to great ones. A lot of that ability depends upon the experience of the photographer leading up to that decisive moment to take the photograph. Still, I feel pertaining to experienced thinking, timing is critical, just like a great photographer taking a great photograph. It isn't merely sensing what is in the environment but knowing how to orient to it and when to take the photograph at the precise optimum moment. For what that is worth? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:07 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Snow is interested in measuring aptitude taking a transactional perspective, and talks about person-situation units; person-situation units are therefore units of Aptitude. Snow then says that "there is therefore no detached or abstracted list of qualities of instructional treatments that will be equally important for all persons or similar list of qualities of persons that will be equally important for all treatments. Aptitude is the unique coalition of affordances and effectivities in particular person-treatment systems" (Snow, 1992, p. 25). It makes sense to me, and sounds extremely close to what Vygotsky was saying in his lecture on "the environment". Obviously, this is not an orthodox Marxist take, or else the investigation would take us to some unit particular to a given historically developed (in this case, person-treatment) system. But so neither was VYgotsky's perezhivanie, if only because he had not the time to work it further (although others like Leont'ev and Sasha had less hopes on that possibility). Yet, both ideas seem to me quite inspiring and informative as general heuristics with regard to how to proceed methodologically: if I am to studying intelligence, or aptitude, or experience, and I am doing so in terms of a unit that does not integrate within itself a transaction between person and situation, then I am probably going to have troubles to put back together what my analyses has dismembered. Also, note that I had written "environment," where Snow had written "situation". I like the latter better. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5?32. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 11 December 2017 15:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie Alfredo, what on Earth does it mean: "'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit."? Surely the term "unit" implies a relation: A is a unit of B. Yes? What is the A and B here? I don't doubt that there is a perfectly coherent idea behind this, but I find this kind of formulation mystifying. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm Andy Blunden's Home Page - Ethical Politics Home Page www.ethicalpolitics.org Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons On 11/12/2017 7:01 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > In a book Wolff-Michael Roth and I wrote last year (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319398679), as well as in a paper that we are co-writing right now on how a group of kids and a teacher get better at reading/performing theatre scripts, we seek to examine trajectories of development in terms of person-environment units?which is how Vygotsky defined perezhivanie. In both cases, we find recourse in the work of educational psychologist Richard E. Snow, who worked towards a definition of the notion 'aptitude' precisely in terms of person-environment unit. [http://www.springer.com/spcom/sites/sgw/images/logo-springernature_dark.png] Understanding Educational Psychology - A Late Vygotskian ... www.springer.com This book takes up the agenda of the late (but unknown) L. S. Vygotsky, who had turned to the philosopher Spinoza to develop a holistic approach to > > Snow would define aptitudes as "initial states of persons that influence later developments, given specified conditions... the are ... not merely correlates of learning, but rather are propaedeutic to (i.e., needed as preparation for) learning in the particular situation at hand" (Snow, 1992, p. 6). To me, this definition comes very close to what Dewey referred to as continuity of experience, the basic principle that "every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences" (Dewey in Experience and Education). It was Dewey who, together with Arthur Bentley and while critiquing empiricist approaches, asserted that, > "The word experience should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate". With Snow's notion of aptitude, then, we are not dealing with a dualistic view on intelligence, but with an attempt at a monistic approach to what it means becoming skilled, a skilled thinking body one may add. > > And so, if I wonder on the relation between "experienced thinkers" and "perezhivanie" that Robert proposed, I think that an experienced thinker is she who finds herself at the verge of an open path upon which walking further presents as an immediate possibility, for her way of walking has become more path-like; or her path has become more walk-able. Say path, say math, say dealing with messages at a list server. > > Others? > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 10 December 2017 18:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Experienced Thinkers and Perezhivanie > > Coincidentally, I met a man from Belarus last Wed, Vera's day, but before I knew it would be. > > > He moved here with his wife and they will soon have a child. > > > Once I learned from where he hailed, I said, "Oh Vygotsky is from there!" > > > After seeing confusion on his face, I had to remind him who he was... the famous Russian psychologist? > > > The light went off and he said he had studied him 20 years ago. > > > I told him that I only knew a few Russian words one of them being "perezhivanie" and the others "znachenie slova." These are words Holbrook Mahn had taught me about. Two great gifts. > > > The man from Belarus seemed perplexed about my definition of perezhivanie when I'd said I understood Vygotsky used it in regards to instruction, that had to do with the emotional content of the environment for teaching and learning. > > > For him, it meant "frustration". Not as a resulting expression, but as a process, or perhaps another way to say it, as activity not an end. It was a new word meaning for him, and for me. So together we came to appreciate why Vygotsky used that word. > > > Additionally, I learned that in our circle on the listsev, it has been used as a technical term specific to instruction, but perhaps I am wrong. I did not have the space to read the recent thread on perezhivanie, so I may be speaking out of time with recent developed threads and my advanced apology if that is the case. > > > This now makes me think about controversy, such as what is happening concerning last year's election, but also in the US government these days, and tension between the media, the president and the people. > > > I have been watching TURN, which is a TV series drama about the American Revolution and the spycraft of that time. There was a lot of perezhivanie going on. > > > Perezhivanie seems a very democratic word. > > > So to answer the question, I find the relationship between an experienced thinker and perezhivanie is timing. A choosing words appropriately. > > > Vera was excellent at that. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2017 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The illuminance that was Vera > > I have a question for the listserve. How would you envision > or connect the notion of "experienced thinkers" with perezhivanie? > Can anyone share a few thoughts in along this line? > RL > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello colorful fish of the XMCA pond, >> >> >> Vera's friendship was a thing nontrivial, as ontologies go. >> >> >> Her academic sensibility was excellent and demanding. At the same time, >> her pathos for the world swam deep. We know from recent experience that >> although she did not post frequently on the list, she dearly valued the >> intellectual exchange that we all enjoy here. It nourished and populated >> her mind. To the end, I believe this was the case. >> >> >> My personal sense of Vera is that few people were privy to the world she >> witnessed, through her eyes. I'm one who could not perceive this world >> directly, but I could tell that she perceived much differently than many of >> us, if only because she had witnessed a wide variety of human activity >> during her long, sometimes unyielding life. I was kind of standing on a >> hill beneath her vantage point and observing that she could see farther >> than I could, without the means to detect what she could see vividly. She >> could be silent in her thoughts and those pregnant pauses could be so >> meaningful, even powerful. Wide vistas. I mean to say that these silent >> pauses were almost words unto themselves. Can a linguist be a linguist of >> no words? >> >> >> Most people who met Vera and had the opportunity to spend a little bit of >> time with her, as a student or otherwise, came to love her. My opinion is >> if you could not love her, then you were left to admire her mind, work >> ethic, and academic accomplishments, no small crumbs; Vera was the arete >> that the Old Greeks talked about. >> >> >> I feel she made a good-faith effort to be accepting of others even if she >> disagreed with them. She was willing to seek the grey tones in a black and >> white contest. Everyone had a viewpoint and that viewpoint was for its very >> existence a valid one, because it was thought by someone, arising from a >> personal, perhaps intimate, experience ? and this demands respect, but was >> not immune to being challenged, which sometimes she could do in five words >> or less. >> >> >> She did not see disagreement as an assault to her being, as some of us can >> sometimes feel in heated debate, frustrating disagreements, even chafing >> exasperation. She was patient, nuanced, poised. Such rapport during a >> debate of ideas is the academic standard for which we all must reach, given >> the world we live in today. It is imperative. I feel that way because in >> this process of reaching (to listen, to search, to learn), we each stretch >> a little: it's a good kind of yoga that makes each of us a better >> contributor to the rest, for the rest, by the rest. >> >> >> I do not believe I am wrong to say that Vera fought for a better world >> through her efforts to understand how to be a better teacher and how to >> truly serve the developing minds of children who might not have that many >> opportunities available to them. She encouraged that temperament in her >> students, and perhaps her colleagues as well. It was how to serve in order >> to achieve the best outcomes for everyone, which was a sign of her wisdom. >> It is not a struggle singular to Vera, and I believe every one of you has a >> dog in that race, to serve today's children and tomorrow's graduate >> students, and even one another. >> >> >> Vera was also a bona fide feminist. A velvet glove with a strong grip on >> the realities of gendered relationship. She was not afraid to support other >> women and celebrate their accomplishments no matter the size. She was not >> afraid to debate men, but I feel safe to say she chose her battles when it >> mattered, but she was aware we still have a long way to go, baby. She was >> aggrieved over the election and was fearful about our future. I wish we >> could have shared better news with her than hurricane Harvey, if you get my >> meaning. >> >> >> I also want to say something about Vera's strength if only because it was >> annealed through resilience. I feel she saw resilience as necessary for >> survival, and that she saw collaboration as resilience expressed between >> two or more people. I think this is why she valued collaboration; it is >> vital to know the dynamics of collaboration in order to survive all >> challenges that life eventually presents to us. "A sterling collaborator >> be," might be on her family crest. >> >> >> Additionally, Vera studied those whom we call geniuses, Vygotsky being one >> of them. She told me and a classmate once during office hours that she >> would continue to find new insights in his work after each re-reading, so >> even after her own familiarity, we all have that to look forward to in >> reading and re-reading his work. If this was the case for her, then it will >> be for us. >> >> >> It occurred to me some years ago how brilliant it is to study the >> development of genius. "Notebooks of the Mind" is one residual of such >> work. She was onto something there. She was looking at what occasions a >> person or a partnership to reach unique levels of creative accomplishment; >> not what is pathological about the mind in society, but what were its >> virtues? What is a mind that has developed to a pinnacle, significantly >> altering a paradigm of study, creative discourse, or any human endeavor? >> How does one become distinguished in creative work? What was the recipe for >> that? Can it be replicated? >> >> >> Imagine if we could all be geniuses, what would the world be like? Would >> there be enough room for so many of us? >> >> >> I think she would say, "Yes," in that delicate Hungarian accent of hers. >> >> >> I suppose any doubt she might have concerning a world populated with >> geniuses, precipitated from the problematic baggage that the word "genius" >> carries. Consider the fallacy of Rodin's thinker, his head on his fist >> where ideas spring eternal from no place in particular while enthralled in >> monastic solitude. It is not real, nor is it human. Instead, Vera preferred >> to call such folks "experienced thinkers." It is so apt a phrase, and so >> elegant. Please consider appropriating that phrase in your vocabularies, in >> memory of Vera if you want. Certainly Vera was an elegant thinker; her >> speech embodied remarkable reflections that revealed the ripples of her >> introspection. >> >> >> >> >> An image of koi comes to my mind's eye, as they swim in a clear pond >> socially, quietly, peacefully. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for allowing me to share my heartfelt gratitude for this unique >> human being in this very long post. I want to say I will miss her, but I >> feel she is with me still. >> >> I hope you feel that way too. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> > From lemke.jay@gmail.com Wed Dec 13 13:52:20 2017 From: lemke.jay@gmail.com (Jay Lemke) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:52:20 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Something interesting that is taking off In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Watched this. So simple and yet long hindered from development by a canon of esthetics based on visual uniformity. Many wider lessons here about the ideology of standardization. Thanks for the link. JAY. Jay Lemke Professor Emeritus City University of New York www.jaylemke.com On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > A new typeface/font for people with dyslexia - TEDx explanation from the > designer. > > https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/media-and-awards/ > > I see that this has reached South Africa, but that is not going to stop me > from going and visiting the local remedial schools with the good news. > > A lovely presentation. > > Carol > > -- > Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) > Cultural Historical Activity Theory > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Dec 14 04:45:50 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:45:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in the direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me to reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more related to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the varying contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' contrasts with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , that is , man.? ? Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and stabilities aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain praxis based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even scientists having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves **knowing** what they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done it).] Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know here how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness.? Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they need appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but that's theory and not actuality. Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought ensued. This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent guidances. Best wishes Haydi From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Haydi, all: concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.?? Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is its direct opposite" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives of buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, where any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts.? Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the new which its advent heralds. Sociality is the capacity for being several things at once" (Philosophy of the Present, p. 49). The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) Negri (The Savage Anomaly, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter:?It is dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the case at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and that is in the Bakhtin I read. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book:?The Mathematics of Mathematics On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: Hello Michael, Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but this piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much!? And I appreciate your replying to : And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The Philosophy of the Act*???You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of what we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the affairs. Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as arising in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the response seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it.? All the best wishes Haydi? From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Hi all, The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they always belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking and Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence of *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe theory*. This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in bullet (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is about a way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to be developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological steps to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development to infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a qualitatively new form? This is the question the article answers. I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even scientists having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing what they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German Ideology*). In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, too] and *The Philosophy of the Present*). I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given the long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Alfredo: > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > consequently abstract. > > c)? What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > perizhivanie".? On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > to me: > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > on itself.... > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > in > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > transition > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > about > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > those > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > Alfredo > > ______________________________ __________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > > for? ? discussion > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > the > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > writings. > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > right > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > and > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > for > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Dec 14 14:45:07 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:45:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given social, cultural and historical contexts). Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of Peircean semiosis applies. Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing it. James On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg wrote: > Alfredo: > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > consequently abstract. > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > to me: > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > on itself.... > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > in > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > transition > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > about > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > those > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > > for discussion > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > the > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > writings. > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > right > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > and > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > for > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Thu Dec 14 14:54:57 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:54:57 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, not meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are not the same but themselves in movement. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing > it. > > > > James > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Alfredo: > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > Vygotsky > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > Vygotsky > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > This > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > more > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > consequently abstract. > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > for > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > all; > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > > to me: > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > and > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) > it > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > > on itself.... > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > development. > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > > in > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > transition > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > about > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > those > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article > > > for discussion > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > Wolff-Michael > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > > the > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > to > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > right > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > > and > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > > for > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > in > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Dec 14 15:32:15 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:32:15 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an abstraction from contradictions between interactions. For example, I saw that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in quantum physics. Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism: "contradiction is the root of all movement." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl431.htm#HL2_955 Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > ... The smallest unit of movement still is > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Thu Dec 14 16:57:00 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:57:00 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi Andy, I am looking at the real movement of the thinking-body (Il'enkov), using a pen and making a circle, for example. No abstraction. This is precisely what Maxine Sheets-Johnston develops, and the point that she critiques with embodiers and and enactivists---they abstract in positing schemas, that are somewhere lodged in the mind, whereas life is in movement, real movement, not abstracted. Without movement, life does not exist. Also, an important point. I am talking about *trans*action not *inter*action---in the senses of Dewey and Bateson. Transaction is the coming and going in the same action that Mikhailov is writing about, and the afferent and efferent aspects of an action in the work of Timo J?rvilehto. Because of this, any form of cognition cannot be located merely in the brain (see also Il'enkov on the beginning of any thought at the outside of the thinker, and the endpoint of the thought again on the outside of the thinker). I don't know where this stuff from quantum physics comes in. I am a physicist by training, having done my MSc in atomic physics, and so I don't see the link to the argument here. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an abstraction > from contradictions between interactions. For example, I saw > that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The > contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why > "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in quantum physics. > Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism: > "contradiction is the root of all movement." > > https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ > hl/hl431.htm#HL2_955 > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > ... The smallest unit of movement still is > > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Thu Dec 14 17:03:29 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:03:29 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> Message-ID: ... and, quantum physics is right for describing events that we attribute to quantum particles, protons, photons, electrons, etc. For human size stuff, we use classical physics because it does pretty well; and when we go to stellar scale, we don't use quantum physics but general relativity because these approaches are better suited for describing and theorizing what we observe :-) Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > I am looking at the real movement of the thinking-body (Il'enkov), using a > pen and making a circle, for example. No abstraction. This is precisely > what Maxine Sheets-Johnston develops, and the point that she critiques with > embodiers and and enactivists---they abstract in positing schemas, that are > somewhere lodged in the mind, whereas life is in movement, real movement, > not abstracted. Without movement, life does not exist. > > Also, an important point. I am talking about *trans*action not *inter*action---in > the senses of Dewey and Bateson. Transaction is the coming and going in the > same action that Mikhailov is writing about, and the afferent and efferent > aspects of an action in the work of Timo J?rvilehto. Because of this, any > form of cognition cannot be located merely in the brain (see also Il'enkov > on the beginning of any thought at the outside of the thinker, and the > endpoint of the thought again on the outside of the thinker). > > I don't know where this stuff from quantum physics comes in. I am a > physicist by training, having done my MSc in atomic physics, and so I don't > see the link to the argument here. > > Michael > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an abstraction >> from contradictions between interactions. For example, I saw >> that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The >> contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why >> "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in quantum physics. >> Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism: >> "contradiction is the root of all movement." >> >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/ >> hl431.htm#HL2_955 >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: >> > ... The smallest unit of movement still is >> > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts >> are >> > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael >> > >> > >> > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >> > >> > >> >> > From dkirsh@lsu.edu Thu Dec 14 17:26:43 2017 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 01:26:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: James, I see social science research in the way you are describing it as assertion of a perspective. Data do not confirm the perspective, they are encompassed and normalized by it. My question is in the relation of social science to philosophy. Is it that philosophy is inherently more dialogic? David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of James Ma Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 4:45 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given social, cultural and historical contexts). Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of Peircean semiosis applies. Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing it. James On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg wrote: > Alfredo: > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > Vygotsky from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac > Spielrein). Vygotsky was consistent: the child is not a short adult, > and the adult is not a senile child, so child development cannot be > seen as a kind of dress rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult > development be seen as continuing child development by other means: > there is a qualitative difference between the adolescent and the young > adult that does not exist even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > This is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and > also divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising > to the concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me > that necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more > specific and more age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it > much more general and consequently abstract. > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > mean for it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat > amongst the pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie > of perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > consciousness is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any > consciousness at all; it also seems (to me) to imply that > consciousness is essentially individual, the product of reflection > upon reflections (and there is a similar argument being made, rather > sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > Theory, 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > appeal to me: > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > differentiation and not replacement of one form by another. If > consciousness is essentially perizhivanie turned back on itself (like > language turned back on itself) it is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > back on itself.... > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > > now open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > turn-over > in > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > transition > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > > writings > about > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > > I wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > > whether > those > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > > the article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > > for discussion > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > > Vygotskian notion that has appeared more than once in xmca but which > > is not so common in > the > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's writings. > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques to Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, > > the article brings with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary > > (which is open access > right > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > and > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > for > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on in current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From ablunden@mira.net Thu Dec 14 17:43:47 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:43:47 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> Message-ID: I remember being shocked, Michael, when I first read the critique of the concept of "trajectory" in a North-Holland book on the mathematical foundations of quantum physics back in the 1960s, but on reflection, it is correct and anticipated by Hegel. Hegel is of course talking about the *real* movement not subjective thought forms, just as much as Marx is, but this is a whole other question. On reflection, I think I was wrong referring to "movement" as an "abstraction," though. It would be more true to say it is a derivative or higher order concept while "contradiction" is the more fundamental concept, from which "movement" derives. I only raised it because you said "The smallest unit of movement still is movement," which is just as nonsensical as the broken English translation of Leontyev: "Activity is the unit of activity," which has caused so much confusion for English speakers. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/12/2017 12:03 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > ... and, quantum physics is right for describing events > that we attribute to quantum particles, protons, photons, > electrons, etc. For human size stuff, we use classical > physics because it does pretty well; and when we go to > stellar scale, we don't use quantum physics but general > relativity because these approaches are better suited for > describing and theorizing what we observe :-) > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > /* > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth > > wrote: > > Hi Andy, > I am looking at the real movement of the thinking-body > (Il'enkov), using a pen and making a circle, for > example. No abstraction. This is precisely what Maxine > Sheets-Johnston develops, and the point that she > critiques with embodiers and and enactivists---they > abstract in positing schemas, that are somewhere > lodged in the mind, whereas life is in movement, real > movement, not abstracted. Without movement, life does > not exist. > > Also, an important point. I am talking about > /trans/action not /inter/action---in the senses of > Dewey and Bateson. Transaction is the coming and going > in the same action that Mikhailov is writing about, > and the afferent and efferent aspects of an action in > the work of Timo J?rvilehto. Because of this, any form > of cognition cannot be located merely in the brain > (see also Il'enkov on the beginning of any thought at > the outside of the thinker, and the endpoint of the > thought again on the outside of the thinker). > > I don't know where this stuff from quantum physics > comes in. I am a physicist by training, having done my > MSc in atomic physics, and so I don't see the link to > the argument here. > > Michael > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > /* > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an > abstraction > from contradictions between interactions. For > example, I saw > that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The > contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why > "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in > quantum physics. > Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism: > "contradiction is the root of all movement." > > https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl431.htm#HL2_955 > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > ... The smallest unit of movement still is > > movement, and within it, there is change, so > that the different parts are > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:48:23 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:48:23 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <98e002d6-6d5f-9300-f818-51e223672642@mira.net> Message-ID: Take a look at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Socrates#/media/File:David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg "The Death of Socrates" is a painting that practically invented neo-classicism, and you can see why. It's got everything that Plato's "Phaedo" has and most of "Crito" besides, put in a visual form that anybody can take in at a glance (like the "arrow" formed by the line of sun on the wall and the line of Socrates's leg with the line of heads hoving over the floor, seemingly pointing to the Exit...). It's concrete (like the drawing on paper that Wolff-Michael is talking about)--it's real paint and canvas and if you are in New York you can go and see it at the Met. But it's also highly abstract--Crito is fondling Socrates's leg for a good reason: he is making the distinction between a necessary cause, i.e. Socrates's leg muscles, whose activation is what brought Socrates to prison and whose non-activation is what will keep him there until he dies of the hemlock) and a sufficient one (both Socrates's supporters and his detractors wish him to be an example to others, and that is why Socrates himself chooses to die, in order to show that when you live in a city you must abide by its judgements, even when they are unjust and wrong). The problem with neo-classsicism is that it is very bad at explaining emotion. You can see that the executioner is the one who is most overwrought, and Plato, who sits, anachronistically, at the foot of the (ahistorical) bed with his (ahistorical) gray head bowed is the least. What Socrates is SUPPOSED to be conveying here is really not the distinction between necessary cause and sufficient cause, but the foolishness of fearing death, because according to him death is the beginning of a whole new form of development, much realer and much less abstract than earthly life because a more direct form of communion with the Platonic ideal. Death is the moment when a participant in our historico-cultural community ceases inner speech and oral speech and must continue participating in written speech only, but since, as Wolff-Michael correctly says, thought is not simply an attribute of people but more properly of speech communities, this is part is true enough. But when I made a remark along these lines to Mike (I think it was when Ruqaiya Hasan died) he said, quite rightly, that this ignores the emotion of those suddenly abandoned. That's why, when Vera dies, the testimony of people like Annalisa and Henry, who knew her well, is so important and worth reading (yea, even at great length). It's the part that neo-classicism ignores; the part that this painting cannot convey. There is another part of the story that Socrates himself is ignoring, though. After death, there is a qualitative change in development--development is not for myself or for Ruqaiya or for Vera or for Socrates. It is like the moment when children beget other children, and "development" must, for perfectly good biological as well as sociohistorical and ontogenetic reasons, cease. Phillip Larkin puts it like this: Groping back to bed after a piss I part thick curtains, and am startled by The rapid clouds, the moon?s cleanliness. Four o?clock: wedge-shadowed gardens lie Under a cavernous, a wind-picked sky. There?s something laughable about this, The way the moon dashes through clouds that blow Loosely as cannon-smoke to stand apart (Stone-coloured light sharpening the roofs below) High and preposterous and separate? Lozenge of love! Medallion of art! O wolves of memory! Immensements! No, One shivers slightly, looking up there. The hardness and the brightness and the plain Far-reaching singleness of that wide stare Is a reminder of the strength and pain Of being young; that it can?t come again, But is for others undiminished somewhere. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I remember being shocked, Michael, when I first read the > critique of the concept of "trajectory" in a North-Holland > book on the mathematical foundations of quantum physics back > in the 1960s, but on reflection, it is correct and > anticipated by Hegel. Hegel is of course talking about the > *real* movement not subjective thought forms, just as much > as Marx is, but this is a whole other question. > > On reflection, I think I was wrong referring to "movement" > as an "abstraction," though. It would be more true to say it > is a derivative or higher order concept while > "contradiction" is the more fundamental concept, from which > "movement" derives. I only raised it because you said "The > smallest unit of movement still is movement," which is just > as nonsensical as the broken English translation of > Leontyev: "Activity is the unit of activity," which has > caused so much confusion for English speakers. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/12/2017 12:03 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > ... and, quantum physics is right for describing events > > that we attribute to quantum particles, protons, photons, > > electrons, etc. For human size stuff, we use classical > > physics because it does pretty well; and when we go to > > stellar scale, we don't use quantum physics but general > > relativity because these approaches are better suited for > > describing and theorizing what we observe :-) > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>/* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > I am looking at the real movement of the thinking-body > > (Il'enkov), using a pen and making a circle, for > > example. No abstraction. This is precisely what Maxine > > Sheets-Johnston develops, and the point that she > > critiques with embodiers and and enactivists---they > > abstract in positing schemas, that are somewhere > > lodged in the mind, whereas life is in movement, real > > movement, not abstracted. Without movement, life does > > not exist. > > > > Also, an important point. I am talking about > > /trans/action not /inter/action---in the senses of > > Dewey and Bateson. Transaction is the coming and going > > in the same action that Mikhailov is writing about, > > and the afferent and efferent aspects of an action in > > the work of Timo J?rvilehto. Because of this, any form > > of cognition cannot be located merely in the brain > > (see also Il'enkov on the beginning of any thought at > > the outside of the thinker, and the endpoint of the > > thought again on the outside of the thinker). > > > > I don't know where this stuff from quantum physics > > comes in. I am a physicist by training, having done my > > MSc in atomic physics, and so I don't see the link to > > the argument here. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>/* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an > > abstraction > > from contradictions between interactions. For > > example, I saw > > that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The > > contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why > > "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in > > quantum physics. > > Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism: > > "contradiction is the root of all movement." > > > > https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ > hl/hl431.htm#HL2_955 > > hl/hl431.htm#HL2_955> > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > > ... The smallest unit of movement still is > > > movement, and within it, there is change, so > > that the different parts are > > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Fri Dec 15 00:36:59 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> , Message-ID: <1513327019526.90535@iped.uio.no> HI James, interesting thoughts, particularly those on the role of social science; and a different way to put things when it comes to "meaning", which is of course welcome. But I wonder about your emphasis on the "within the individual" when you describe signs and the meaning of meaning. How are, in the framework that you set forth, the "social, cultural, and historical contexts" that you mention come to be involved in the process of change or reconstitution that you describe? Are they external input that appear only and always reflected in signs "within the individual" (in which case the account seems dualist, which on the other hand is not a reproach, would be okey too if one finds that road useful)? Or is there other more materialist aspect in your account that addresses context as something internal to this process? I read Michael's piece working towards the latter, where Leandro's changes are manifestation of a changing whole that is not reducible to "within Leandro", and I think it is here that your respective accounts disengage (or rather where they can potentially engage). Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: 14 December 2017 23:54 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, not meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are not the same but themselves in movement. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing > it. > > > > James > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Alfredo: > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > Vygotsky > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > Vygotsky > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > This > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > more > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > consequently abstract. > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > for > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > all; > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > > to me: > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > and > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) > it > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > > on itself.... > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > development. > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > > in > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > transition > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > about > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > those > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article > > > for discussion > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > Wolff-Michael > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > > the > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > to > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > right > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > > and > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > > for > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > in > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Fri Dec 15 02:42:37 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Michael Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk which however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that the coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot and that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you , however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers ARE NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the talk instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find ourselves at the same point. Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels my want of learning from you really not complimentarily. Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their origin and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps and neoformations. Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which must have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the yardstick and we must try to learn about it. That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] and: [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they are , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at once' might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. Haydi? ? From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: Haydi Zulfei Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Haydi, Bourdieu (Le sens pratique) distinguishes practical mastery and symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. sports journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, that is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that way, have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the cancer in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) Cheers, Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book:?The Mathematics of Mathematics On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in the direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me to reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more related to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the varying contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' contrasts with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , that is , man.? ? Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and stabilities aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain praxis based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even scientists having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves **knowing** what they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done it).] Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know here how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness.? Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they need appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but that's theory and not actuality. Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought ensued. This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent guidances. Best wishes Haydi From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Haydi, all: concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.?? Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is its direct opposite" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives of buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, where any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts.? Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the new which its advent heralds. Sociality is the capacity for being several things at once" (Philosophy of the Present, p. 49). The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) Negri (The Savage Anomaly, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter:?It is dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the case at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and that is in the Bakhtin I read. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book:?The Mathematics of Mathematics On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: Hello Michael, Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but this piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much!? And I appreciate your replying to : And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The Philosophy of the Act*???You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of what we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the affairs. Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as arising in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the response seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it.? All the best wishes Haydi? From: Wolff-Michael Roth To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Hi all, The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they always belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking and Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence of *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe theory*. This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in bullet (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is about a way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to be developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological steps to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development to infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a qualitatively new form? This is the question the article answers. I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even scientists having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing what they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German Ideology*). In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, too] and *The Philosophy of the Present*). I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given the long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Alfredo: > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > consequently abstract. > > c)? What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > perizhivanie".? On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all; > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > to me: > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > on itself.... > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development. > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > in > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > transition > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > about > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > those > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > Alfredo > > ______________________________ __________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article > > for? ? discussion > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > the > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > writings. > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > right > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > and > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > for > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 05:47:07 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:47:07 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the object (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the question is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that if we change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process of DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: > Michael > > Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk which > however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the > surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that the > coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot and > that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you , > however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers ARE > NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the talk > instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find > ourselves at the same point. > > Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels my > want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory > ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , > process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their origin > and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps and > neoformations. > > Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which must > have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the > yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: > > [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community > make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > and: > > [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they are > , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they > require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each > realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? > Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at once' > might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > Haydi > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > *To:* Haydi Zulfei > *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > 4 article for discussion > > Haydi, > > Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and > symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. sports > journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know > themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the > something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, that > is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that way, > have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the cancer > in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. > > I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of > those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > > Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in the > direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me to > reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce > though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more related > to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko > (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of > word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The > word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' > including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the varying > contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being > realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , > discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' contrasts > with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not > necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) > and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as > connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he > attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , that > is , man. > > Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as > moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your > discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and stabilities > aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , > that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises > COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily > dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that > quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates > another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this > form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: > > [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain praxis > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from > praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even > scientists > having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves > **knowing** what > they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done it).] > > Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds > if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know here > how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. > > Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times > like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He > criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as > leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they need > appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists > themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers > are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a > hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but > that's theory and not actuality. > > Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought ensued. > This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent > guidances. > > Best wishes > > Haydi > ------------------------------ > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > 4 article for discussion > > Haydi, all: > > concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our > community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our > community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. > > Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its > foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is *its > direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 > [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars > exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an > exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and > exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives of > buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This > exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same > coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of > mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of > coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, where > any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. > > Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two > orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the > perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. > "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the > new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being > several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The word, > in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: > "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It is > dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its > expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This > method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every > point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the case > at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of > movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the > possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and > that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > Michael > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the > viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little > understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater > comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel > much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , > 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to > understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing > your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but this > piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I > really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! > > And I appreciate your replying to : > > And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > Philosophy of the Act* > > You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of > dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of > dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of > communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize > intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of what > we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the affairs. > Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as arising > in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never > dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who > opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your > writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go > through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last > three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the response > seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. > > All the best wishes > > Haydi > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article for discussion > > Hi all, > > The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas > to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, > are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they always > belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking and > Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > > So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence of > *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe theory*. > This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in bullet > (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is about a > way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to be > developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological steps > to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development to > infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a qualitatively > new form? This is the question the article answers. > > I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his Vygotsky > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of experiences > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????" > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to Marx > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel on > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even scientists > having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing what > they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > > That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in > Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German > Ideology*). > In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the > future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, > too] and *The > Philosophy of the Present*). > > I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given the > long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > >* > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Alfredo: > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > Vygotsky > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > Vygotsky > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > This > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > more > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > consequently abstract. > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > for > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > all; > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory, > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal > > to me: > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > and > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) > it > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back > > on itself.... > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > development. > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over > > in > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > transition > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > about > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > those > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ______________________________ __________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article > > > for discussion > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > Wolff-Michael > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > > the > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > to > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > right > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > > and > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > > for > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > in > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 14:39:14 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 07:39:14 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are discussing the "transformation of quality into quantity" as if there were no qualitative difference between the transformation of ice into water and the "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, or a child into an adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. It might even sometimes be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to say to children that "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how one branch of the dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. Linguists sometimes talk about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of society and Newton spoke of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a little game where rabbits "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead rabbits. But let's not forget how different these phenomena are; it's like an actor forgetting that she or he is in character, and an audience forgetting that a play is done for pay. Embryos grow without developing: that is, they increase in quantitative mass without any qualitative change in response to the historico-cultural environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them from his pedology. Adults develop without growing; that is, they change behavioral forms without any quantitative change in their mass; that was why Vygotsky excused adults from his pedology. Children do both at one and the same time; indeed, the two processes are inextricably interlinked, and that's why Vygotsky devoted the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex dynamic unity. Isn't the first step in understanding it to understand that it is a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a very different quality? David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the object > (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the question > is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) > change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that if we > change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The > thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process of > DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: > > > Michael > > > > Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk > which > > however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the > > surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that > the > > coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot and > > that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you , > > however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers ARE > > NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the > talk > > instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find > > ourselves at the same point. > > > > Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels my > > want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > > > Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory > > ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , > > process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their origin > > and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps and > > neoformations. > > > > Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which > must > > have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the > > yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > > > That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: > > > > [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community > > make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > > > and: > > > > [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > > Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > > > I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they > are > > , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they > > require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each > > realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? > > Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at once' > > might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > > > Haydi > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > > 4 article for discussion > > > > Haydi, > > > > Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and > > symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. > sports > > journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know > > themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the > > something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, > that > > is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that way, > > have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the > cancer > > in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. > > > > I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of > > those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > > > > Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in > the > > direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me > to > > reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce > > though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more > related > > to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko > > (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of > > word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The > > word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > Voloshinov, > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' > > including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the > varying > > contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being > > realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , > > discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' > contrasts > > with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not > > necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) > > and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as > > connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he > > attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , > that > > is , man. > > > > Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as > > moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your > > discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and > stabilities > > aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , > > that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises > > COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily > > dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that > > quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates > > another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this > > form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: > > > > [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > Vygotsky > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > experiences > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > ?????????" > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > Marx > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain > praxis > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > > praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from > > praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > on > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even > > scientists > > having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves > > **knowing** what > > they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done > it).] > > > > Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds > > if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know > here > > how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. > > > > Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times > > like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He > > criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as > > leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they > need > > appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists > > themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers > > are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a > > hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but > > that's theory and not actuality. > > > > Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought > ensued. > > This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent > > guidances. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Haydi > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > > 4 article for discussion > > > > Haydi, all: > > > > concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our > > community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our > > community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. > > > > Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its > > foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is > *its > > direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 > > [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars > > exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an > > exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and > > exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives > of > > buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This > > exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same > > coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of > > mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of > > coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, > where > > any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. > > > > Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two > > orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the > > perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. > > "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the > > new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being > > several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The word, > > in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > > > Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: > > "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It is > > dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its > > expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This > > method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every > > point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the > case > > at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of > > movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the > > possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and > > that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the > > viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little > > understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater > > comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel > > much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , > > 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to > > understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing > > your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but > this > > piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I > > really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! > > > > And I appreciate your replying to : > > > > And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > > Philosophy of the Act* > > > > You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of > > dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of > > dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of > > communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize > > intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of > what > > we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the > affairs. > > Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as > arising > > in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never > > dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who > > opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your > > writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go > > through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last > > three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the > response > > seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. > > > > All the best wishes > > > > Haydi > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article for discussion > > > > Hi all, > > > > The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas > > to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, > > are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > > espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they > always > > belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking > and > > Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > > > > So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > > which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence > of > > *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe > theory*. > > This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > > phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > > tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in > bullet > > (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is > about a > > way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > > neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > > *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to > be > > developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > > satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological > steps > > to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > > attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development > to > > infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > > empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a > qualitatively > > new form? This is the question the article answers. > > > > I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > Vygotsky > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > experiences > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > ?????????" > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > Marx > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > > praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > > praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > on > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even > scientists > > having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing > what > > they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > > > > That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in > > Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > > anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German > > Ideology*). > > In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > > [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > > consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the > > future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > > developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of > *The > > Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, > > too] and *The > > Philosophy of the Present*). > > > > I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > > implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > > *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given > the > > long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > > Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/> > > >* > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > Vygotsky > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > Vygotsky > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > exist > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > This > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > the > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > > more > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > > for > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > consciousness > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > > all; > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > Theory, > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > appeal > > > to me: > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > > and > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > itself) > > it > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > back > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > now > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > development. > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > turn-over > > > in > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > transition > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > > about > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > I > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > > those > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ______________________________ __________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > to > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > > right > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > > for > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > in > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Dec 15 15:01:40 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:01:40 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> I heartily agree with the drift of this message, David. "The law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the barest, most abstract description of processes, which unlike any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any actual process of development. Describing the melting of ice into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon. Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest ranks of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in their intellectual battles with the bourgeois establishment. The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century scientific journals I find absurd, Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are discussing the > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if there were no qualitative > difference between the transformation of ice into water and the > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, or a child into an > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. It might even sometimes > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to say to children that > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how one branch of the > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. Linguists sometimes talk > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of society and Newton spoke > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a little game where rabbits > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead rabbits. But let's not > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like an actor forgetting > that she or he is in character, and an audience forgetting that a play > is done for pay. > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they increase in quantitative > mass without any qualitative change in response to the historico-cultural > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them from his pedology. Adults > develop without growing; that is, they change behavioral forms without any > quantitative change in their mass; that was why Vygotsky excused adults > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the same time; indeed, the > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and that's why Vygotsky devoted > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex dynamic unity. > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to understand that it is > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a very different quality? > > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the object >> (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the question >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael >> >> >> >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------------- >> Applied Cognitive Science >> MacLaurin Building A567 >> University of Victoria >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >> >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that if we >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The >> thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process of >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: >> >>> Michael >>> >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk >> which >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that >> the >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot and >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you , >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers ARE >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the >> talk >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find >>> ourselves at the same point. >>> >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels my >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily. >>> >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their origin >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps and >>> neoformations. >>> >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which >> must >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it. >>> >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: >>> >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] >>> >>> and: >>> >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] >>> >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they >> are >>> , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each >>> realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? >>> Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at once' >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. >>> >>> Haydi >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue >>> 4 article for discussion >>> >>> Haydi, >>> >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. >> sports >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, >> that >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that way, >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the >> cancer >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. >>> >>> I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in >> the >>> direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me >> to >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more >> related >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and >> Voloshinov, >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the >> varying >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' >> contrasts >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) >>> and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , >> that >>> is , man. >>> >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and >> stabilities >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates >>> another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: >>> >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his >> Vygotsky >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of >> experiences >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? >> ?????????" >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to >> Marx >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain >> praxis >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel >> on >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even >>> scientists >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves >>> **knowing** what >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done >> it).] >>> Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds >>> if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know >> here >>> how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. >>> >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He >>> criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as >>> leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they >> need >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but >>> that's theory and not actuality. >>> >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought >> ensued. >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent >>> guidances. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Haydi >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue >>> 4 article for discussion >>> >>> Haydi, all: >>> >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. >>> >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is >> *its >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives >> of >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, >> where >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. >>> >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The word, >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) >>> >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It is >>> dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the >> case >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> >>> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: >>> >>> Hello Michael, >>> >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but >> this >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! >>> >>> And I appreciate your replying to : >>> >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The >>> Philosophy of the Act* >>> >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of >> what >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the >> affairs. >>> Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as >> arising >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the >> response >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. >>> >>> All the best wishes >>> >>> Haydi >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 >>> article for discussion >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas >>> to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they >> always >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking >> and >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. >>> >>> So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence >> of >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe >> theory*. >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in >> bullet >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is >> about a >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to >> be >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological >> steps >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development >> to >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a >> qualitatively >>> new form? This is the question the article answers. >>> >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his >> Vygotsky >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of >> experiences >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? >> ?????????" >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to >> Marx >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel >> on >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even >> scientists >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing >> what >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). >>> >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be >>> anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German >>> Ideology*). >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of >> *The >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, >>> too] and *The >>> Philosophy of the Present*). >>> >>> I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given >> the >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> >>> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >> > >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/ >>> > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >> mathematics-of-mathematics/> >>>> * >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alfredo: >>>> >>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. >>>> >>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided >>> Vygotsky >>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). >>> Vygotsky >>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a >>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress >>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as >>>> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative >>>> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not >> exist >>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. >>>> >>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? >>> This >>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also >>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to >> the >>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that >>>> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and >>> more >>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and >>>> consequently abstract. >>>> >>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean >>> for >>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the >>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of >>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that >> consciousness >>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at >>> all; >>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially >>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a >>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the >>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... >>>> >>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and >> Theory, >>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 >>>> >>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do >> appeal >>>> to me: >>>> >>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation >>> and >>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially >>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on >> itself) >>> it >>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. >>>> >>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, >>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it >> back >>>> on itself.... >>>> >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >>>> >>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >>>> >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is >> now >>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 >>> >>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult >>> development. >>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already >>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental >> turn-over >>>> in >>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and >>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of >>>> transition >>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings >>>> about >>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges >>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. >> I >>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether >>>> those >>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present in the >>>>> article relevant/appealing/ problematic... >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> ______________________________ __________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu >>> >> > >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 >>> article >>>>> for discussion >>>>> >>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected >>>> article >>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by >>> Wolff-Michael >>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental >> Change?". >>>>> >>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a >> brief >>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian >> notion >>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common >> in >>>> the >>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in >> Vygotsky's >>>>> writings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and >> critiques >>> to >>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article >> brings >>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access >>>> right >>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The whole issue is published here: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >>> >>>>> >>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming >> days, >>>> and >>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy >>>> bringing >>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we >> have >>>> for >>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live >> on >>> in >>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 15:41:07 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:41:07 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi David, when you look closely at the article that I wrote, you will notice that I suggest a method for looking at qualitative changes. Basically, it means looking at (a) the history of the system, (b) the emergence of a qualitatively new state, (c) the history of the system afterward, (d) the transition to the new state, and (e) the history following the transition. In each of the transformations---you put quotation marks for some reason----you can use this method of investigation. It makes sense to me to look at the history of a system and at the emergence of new qualities. Vygotsky explained his unit analysis---to be applied to the study of the thinking-speaking relation---drawing on water, oxygen, and hydrogen as an analogy. Is there no qualitative difference between the unit of water and whatever LSV was pursuing as the unit of thinking and speech? Engels, in his presentation of dialectics and dialectical method, used many examples of qualitatively very different transformations (mainly chemistry and physics) to make his point. Thom, in his presentation of catastrophe theory as a way to describe morphogenesis (his term for the genesis of new forms), he looked at a wide variety of transformations, some from physics and chemistry, a lot from biology, and, here most importantly, from quite different human sciences and literature. So I don't get how what you write would be a critique or affirmation if it were of the point I am articulating in the article and in the exchange with Haydi. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:39 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are discussing the > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if there were no qualitative > difference between the transformation of ice into water and the > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, or a child into an > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. It might even sometimes > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to say to children that > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how one branch of the > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. Linguists sometimes talk > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of society and Newton spoke > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a little game where rabbits > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead rabbits. But let's not > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like an actor forgetting > that she or he is in character, and an audience forgetting that a play > is done for pay. > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they increase in quantitative > mass without any qualitative change in response to the historico-cultural > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them from his pedology. Adults > develop without growing; that is, they change behavioral forms without any > quantitative change in their mass; that was why Vygotsky excused adults > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the same time; indeed, the > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and that's why Vygotsky devoted > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex dynamic unity. > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to understand that it is > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a very different quality? > > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the > object > > (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the question > > is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) > > change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that if > we > > change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The > > thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process of > > DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: > > > > > Michael > > > > > > Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk > > which > > > however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the > > > surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that > > the > > > coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot > and > > > that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you > , > > > however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers > ARE > > > NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the > > talk > > > instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find > > > ourselves at the same point. > > > > > > Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels > my > > > want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > > > > > Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory > > > ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , > > > process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their > origin > > > and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps > and > > > neoformations. > > > > > > Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which > > must > > > have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the > > > yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > > > > > That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: > > > > > > [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community > > > make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > > > > > and: > > > > > > [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > > > Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > > > > > I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they > > are > > > , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they > > > require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each > > > realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? > > > Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at > once' > > > might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > > > > > Haydi > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > > *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > > > 4 article for discussion > > > > > > Haydi, > > > > > > Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and > > > symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. > > sports > > > journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know > > > themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the > > > something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, > > that > > > is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that > way, > > > have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the > > cancer > > > in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. > > > > > > I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of > > > those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in > > the > > > direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking > me > > to > > > reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you > introduce > > > though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more > > related > > > to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how > Ilyenko > > > (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of > > > word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The > > > word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > > Voloshinov, > > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' > > > including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the > > varying > > > contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being > > > realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , > > > discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' > > contrasts > > > with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not > > > necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the > concrete) > > > and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as > > > connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he > > > attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , > > that > > > is , man. > > > > > > Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as > > > moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your > > > discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and > > stabilities > > > aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena > , > > > that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. > Crises > > > COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily > > > dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that > > > quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates > > > another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in > this > > > form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: > > > > > > [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > > Vygotsky > > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who > defined > > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > > experiences > > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, > 1997 > > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? > ???????????, > > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > > ?????????" > > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > > Marx > > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain > > praxis > > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of > material > > > praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises > from > > > praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on > the > > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > > on > > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even > > > scientists > > > having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves > > > **knowing** what > > > they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done > > it).] > > > > > > Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous > deeds > > > if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know > > here > > > how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. > > > > > > Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times > > > like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He > > > criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings > as > > > leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they > > need > > > appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists > > > themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet > workers > > > are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a > > > hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT > but > > > that's theory and not actuality. > > > > > > Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought > > ensued. > > > This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent > > > guidances. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > > > 4 article for discussion > > > > > > Haydi, all: > > > > > > concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in > our > > > community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our > > > community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. > > > > > > Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its > > > foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is > > *its > > > direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. > 27 > > > [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars > > > exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an > > > exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and > > > exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives > > of > > > buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This > > > exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same > > > coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of > > > mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of > > > coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, > > where > > > any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. > > > > > > Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two > > > orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the > > > perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. > > > "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and > the > > > new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being > > > several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The > word, > > > in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > > > > > Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: > > > "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It > is > > > dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its > > > expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This > > > method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At > every > > > point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the > > case > > > at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of > > > movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the > > > possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; > and > > > that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > > > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > > > Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the > > > viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little > > > understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater > > > comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I > feel > > > much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , > > > 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to > > > understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're > sharing > > > your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but > > this > > > piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I > > > really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! > > > > > > And I appreciate your replying to : > > > > > > And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > > > Philosophy of the Act* > > > > > > You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance > of > > > dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of > > > dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of > > > communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize > > > intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of > > what > > > we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the > > affairs. > > > Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as > > arising > > > in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never > > > dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who > > > opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of > your > > > writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to > go > > > through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these > last > > > three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the > > response > > > seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. > > > > > > All the best wishes > > > > > > Haydi > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article for discussion > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of > ideas > > > to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because > abstract, > > > are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > > > espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they > > always > > > belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking > > and > > > Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > > > > > > So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > > > which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence > > of > > > *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe > > theory*. > > > This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > > > phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > > > tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in > > bullet > > > (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is > > about a > > > way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > > > neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > > > *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena > to > > be > > > developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > > > satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological > > steps > > > to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > > > attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of > development > > to > > > infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > > > empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a > > qualitatively > > > new form? This is the question the article answers. > > > > > > I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > > Vygotsky > > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who > defined > > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > > experiences > > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, > 1997 > > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? > ???????????, > > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > > ?????????" > > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > > Marx > > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain > praxis > > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of > material > > > praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > > > praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > > on > > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even > > scientists > > > having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing > > what > > > they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > > > > > > That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find > in > > > Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > > > anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German > > > Ideology*). > > > In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > > > [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > > > consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in > the > > > future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > > > developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of > > *The > > > Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, > > > too] and *The > > > Philosophy of the Present*). > > > > > > I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > > > implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > > > *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given > > the > > > long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > > > Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/> > > > >* > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > > Vygotsky > > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > > Vygotsky > > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not > a > > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > > exist > > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > > This > > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > > the > > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific > and > > > more > > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > and > > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > mean > > > for > > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > > consciousness > > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness > at > > > all; > > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is > a > > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > the > > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > > Theory, > > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > appeal > > > > to me: > > > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > differentiation > > > and > > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > essentially > > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > > itself) > > > it > > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > course, > > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > > back > > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > > now > > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. > 2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > > development. > > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > already > > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > turn-over > > > > in > > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > > transition > > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > writings > > > > about > > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > challenges > > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > development. > > I > > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > whether > > > > those > > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > the > > > > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ______________________________ __________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article > > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief > > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > notion > > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > > in > > > > the > > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > to > > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > brings > > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > access > > > > right > > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > > > > for > > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on > > > in > > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 16:03:59 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:03:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> Message-ID: Regarding analog structures in relation to quality and quantity I can perhaps offer the following without knowing where this lands specifically to the paper(s), as I've yet to read them (on my list). Briefly, it is useful to take note of two forms of system at play. The first are the systems observed (behaviours and structures of water, or behaviours and structures part of organic life), the second is the system of observation. The transferability of quality and quantity across systems applies to the system of observation. In both cases the quality of the system is of interest. Specifically, this quality is concerned with how the system is organised. The point about quantity is simply in recognition that when quantities accrue, there are tipping points into different organisations as a function of systemically recognised properties. I think it is particularly worthwhile for researchers who are predominantly focused on text, language or speech to attend closely to these points. Because, this, as I see it, is the source of what is meant by quality -- a definition perhaps hard to extract from a course on qualitative research (because it requires a careful study of systems). I am also a little curious about how the discussion has been initiated, seemingly primed with a focus on set critiques rather than starting with W-M's paper itself. David's contributions have frequently served as an effective foil in numerous discussions, but then I think it would be beneficial to encourage a certain quality of discussion rather than curtailing it to the critiques, unless that is what is explicitly intended? Best, Huw On 15 December 2017 at 23:01, Andy Blunden wrote: > I heartily agree with the drift of this message, David. "The > law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the > barest, most abstract description of processes, which unlike > any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any > actual process of development. Describing the melting of ice > into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what > temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any > insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon. > > Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in > the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest ranks > of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the > leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these > ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in > their intellectual battles with the bourgeois establishment. > The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century > scientific journals I find absurd, > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are discussing the > > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if there were no qualitative > > difference between the transformation of ice into water and the > > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, or a child into an > > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. It might even > sometimes > > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to say to children that > > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how one branch of the > > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. Linguists sometimes > talk > > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of society and Newton > spoke > > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a little game where rabbits > > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead rabbits. But let's > not > > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like an actor forgetting > > that she or he is in character, and an audience forgetting that a play > > is done for pay. > > > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they increase in quantitative > > mass without any qualitative change in response to the historico-cultural > > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them from his pedology. > Adults > > develop without growing; that is, they change behavioral forms without > any > > quantitative change in their mass; that was why Vygotsky excused adults > > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the same time; indeed, the > > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and that's why Vygotsky > devoted > > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex dynamic unity. > > > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to understand that it is > > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a very different quality? > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the > object > >> (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the > question > >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) > >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael > >> > >> > >> > >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> -------------------- > >> Applied Cognitive Science > >> MacLaurin Building A567 > >> University of Victoria > >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > >> > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > >> > >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that > if we > >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The > >> thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process > of > >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: > >> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk > >> which > >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the > >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that > >> the > >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot > and > >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you > , > >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers > ARE > >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the > >> talk > >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find > >>> ourselves at the same point. > >>> > >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels > my > >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > >>> > >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory > >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , > >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their > origin > >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps > and > >>> neoformations. > >>> > >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which > >> must > >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the > >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > >>> > >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: > >>> > >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community > >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > >>> > >>> and: > >>> > >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > >>> > >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they > >> are > >>> , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they > >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each > >>> realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? > >>> Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at > once' > >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > >>> 4 article for discussion > >>> > >>> Haydi, > >>> > >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and > >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. > >> sports > >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know > >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the > >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, > >> that > >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that > way, > >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the > >> cancer > >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. > >>> > >>> I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of > >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in > >> the > >>> direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking > me > >> to > >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you > introduce > >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more > >> related > >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how > Ilyenko > >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of > >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The > >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > >> Voloshinov, > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' > >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the > >> varying > >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being > >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , > >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' > >> contrasts > >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not > >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the > concrete) > >>> and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as > >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he > >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , > >> that > >>> is , man. > >>> > >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as > >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your > >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and > >> stabilities > >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena > , > >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. > Crises > >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily > >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that > >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates > >>> another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in > this > >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: > >>> > >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > >> Vygotsky > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who > defined > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > >> experiences > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, > 1997 > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? > ???????????, > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > >> ?????????" > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > >> Marx > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain > >> praxis > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of > material > >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises > from > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on > the > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > >> on > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even > >>> scientists > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves > >>> **knowing** what > >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done > >> it).] > >>> Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous > deeds > >>> if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know > >> here > >>> how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. > >>> > >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times > >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He > >>> criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings > as > >>> leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they > >> need > >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists > >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet > workers > >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a > >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT > but > >>> that's theory and not actuality. > >>> > >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought > >> ensued. > >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent > >>> guidances. > >>> > >>> Best wishes > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > >>> 4 article for discussion > >>> > >>> Haydi, all: > >>> > >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in > our > >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our > >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. > >>> > >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its > >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is > >> *its > >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. > 27 > >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars > >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an > >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and > >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives > >> of > >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This > >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same > >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of > >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of > >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, > >> where > >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. > >>> > >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two > >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the > >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. > >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and > the > >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being > >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The > word, > >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > >>> > >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: > >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It > is > >>> dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its > >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This > >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At > every > >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the > >> case > >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of > >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the > >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; > and > >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read. > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Michael, > >>> > >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the > >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little > >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater > >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I > feel > >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , > >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to > >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're > sharing > >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but > >> this > >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I > >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! > >>> > >>> And I appreciate your replying to : > >>> > >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > >>> Philosophy of the Act* > >>> > >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance > of > >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of > >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of > >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize > >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of > >> what > >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the > >> affairs. > >>> Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as > >> arising > >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never > >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who > >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of > your > >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to > go > >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these > last > >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the > >> response > >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. > >>> > >>> All the best wishes > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > >>> article for discussion > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of > ideas > >>> to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because > abstract, > >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they > >> always > >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking > >> and > >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > >>> > >>> So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence > >> of > >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe > >> theory*. > >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in > >> bullet > >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is > >> about a > >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena > to > >> be > >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological > >> steps > >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of > development > >> to > >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a > >> qualitatively > >>> new form? This is the question the article answers. > >>> > >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > >> Vygotsky > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who > defined > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > >> experiences > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, > 1997 > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? > ???????????, > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > >> ?????????" > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > >> Marx > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain > praxis > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of > material > >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > >> on > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even > >> scientists > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing > >> what > >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > >>> > >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find > in > >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > >>> anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German > >>> Ideology*). > >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in > the > >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of > >> *The > >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, > >>> too] and *The > >>> Philosophy of the Present*). > >>> > >>> I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given > >> the > >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/ > >>> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/> > >>>> * > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Alfredo: > >>>> > >>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > >>>> > >>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > >>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > >>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > >>>> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > >>>> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > >> exist > >>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > >>>> > >>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > >>> This > >>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > >>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > >> the > >>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > >>>> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > >>> more > >>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > and > >>>> consequently abstract. > >>>> > >>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > mean > >>> for > >>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > >>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > >>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > >> consciousness > >>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > >>> all; > >>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > >>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > >>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > the > >>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > >>>> > >>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > >> Theory, > >>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > >>>> > >>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > >> appeal > >>>> to me: > >>>> > >>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > differentiation > >>> and > >>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > essentially > >>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > >> itself) > >>> it > >>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > >>>> > >>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > >>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > >> back > >>>> on itself.... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > >>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > >>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >>>> > >>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > >>>> > >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > >> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > >> now > >>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > >>> > >>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > >>> development. > >>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > >>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > >> turn-over > >>>> in > >>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > >>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > >>>> transition > >>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > >>>> about > >>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > >>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > >> I > >>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > >>>> those > >>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > >>>>> article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo > >>>>> ______________________________ __________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > >>> >>> > > >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > >>> article > >>>>> for discussion > >>>>> > >>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > >>>> article > >>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > >>> Wolff-Michael > >>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > >> Change?". > >>>>> > >>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > >> brief > >>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > >> notion > >>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > >> in > >>>> the > >>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > >> Vygotsky's > >>>>> writings. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > >> critiques > >>> to > >>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > >> brings > >>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > >>>> right > >>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The whole issue is published here: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > >> days, > >>>> and > >>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > >>>> bringing > >>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > >> have > >>>> for > >>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > >> on > >>> in > >>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Dec 15 16:55:07 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:55:07 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> Message-ID: <6728a554-f7cc-0b3b-7117-bcdd36a8aaf8@mira.net> Huw, I think it is actually problematic to try to draw a line between "systems observed" and "systems of observation," though the intention in doing this is clear enough. I prefer to use expressions like: "what basis does the concept have in objective reality?" That basis may turn out to be a firm basis or a very thin basis. How we evaluate the basis a concept has in reality is by reflection on /practice/, of course, and it is in practice that a system of observation and an external system merge - objective practice. I have tried to popularise a wider range of "dialectical processes" by means of a critique of conceptions of "non-linear processes" largely gleaned from what people have said about "dialectical processes" and "non-linear processes" on XMCA. http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Non-linear%20processes%20and%20the%20dialectic.pdf Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/12/2017 11:03 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Regarding analog structures in relation to quality and > quantity I can perhaps offer the following without knowing > where this lands specifically to the paper(s), as I've yet > to read them (on my list). > > Briefly, it is useful to take note of two forms of system > at play. The first are the systems observed (behaviours > and structures of water, or behaviours and structures part > of organic life), the second is the system of observation. > The transferability of quality and quantity across systems > applies to the system of observation. In both cases the > quality of the system is of interest. Specifically, this > quality is concerned with how the system is organised. The > point about quantity is simply in recognition that when > quantities accrue, there are tipping points into different > organisations as a function of systemically recognised > properties. > > I think it is particularly worthwhile for researchers who > are predominantly focused on text, language or speech to > attend closely to these points. Because, this, as I see > it, is the source of what is meant by quality -- a > definition perhaps hard to extract from a course on > qualitative research (because it requires a careful study > of systems). > > I am also a little curious about how the discussion has > been initiated, seemingly primed with a focus on set > critiques rather than starting with W-M's paper itself. > David's contributions have frequently served as an > effective foil in numerous discussions, but then I think > it would be beneficial to encourage a certain quality of > discussion rather than curtailing it to the critiques, > unless that is what is explicitly intended? > > Best, > Huw > > On 15 December 2017 at 23:01, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > I heartily agree with the drift of this message, > David. "The > law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the > barest, most abstract description of processes, which > unlike > any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any > actual process of development. Describing the melting > of ice > into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what > temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any > insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon. > > Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in > the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest > ranks > of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the > leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these > ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in > their intellectual battles with the bourgeois > establishment. > The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century > scientific journals I find absurd, > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are > discussing the > > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if > there were no qualitative > > difference between the transformation of ice into > water and the > > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, > or a child into an > > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. > It might even sometimes > > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to > say to children that > > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how > one branch of the > > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. > Linguists sometimes talk > > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of > society and Newton spoke > > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a > little game where rabbits > > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead > rabbits. But let's not > > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like > an actor forgetting > > that she or he is in character, and an audience > forgetting that a play > > is done for pay. > > > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they > increase in quantitative > > mass without any qualitative change in response to > the historico-cultural > > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them > from his pedology. Adults > > develop without growing; that is, they change > behavioral forms without any > > quantitative change in their mass; that was why > Vygotsky excused adults > > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the > same time; indeed, the > > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and > that's why Vygotsky devoted > > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex > dynamic unity. > > > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to > understand that it is > > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a > very different quality? > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 > (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on > ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the > subject and the object > >> (THING). What is important is that the relation > changes, and the question > >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than > quantitative, continuous) > >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form > has arisen. Michael > >> > >> > >> > >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> -------------------- > >> Applied Cognitive Science > >> MacLaurin Building A567 > >> University of Victoria > >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > >> > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >> > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >> > >> > >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope > you confirm , that if we > >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the > THING has changed. The > >> thing remains the same as relative stability other > than in the process of > >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. > Thanks! > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, > > wrote: > >> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits > of talking the talk > >> which > >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) > ignoring the facts that the > >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer > the disease and that > >> the > >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to > do a passing shot and > >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some > hidden relation , you , > >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you > stress that trainers ARE > >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring > yourself of not taking the > >> talk > >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution > :-) Then we again find > >>> ourselves at the same point. > >>> > >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the > riddle. And this parallels my > >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > >>> > >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take > the contradictory > >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put > them on a continuum , > >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we > reach H2O as their origin > >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the > cause of the leaps and > >>> neoformations. > >>> > >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are > differing qualities which > >> must > >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us > 'the Measure' as the > >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > >>> > >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take > your time: > >>> > >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some > discourses in our community > >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > >>> > >>> and: > >>> > >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once > (pace Bakhtin and > >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > >>> > >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also > distinctive. And if they > >> are > >>> , should not they require their due corresponding > causes? Do not they > >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said > continuum so that each > >>> realization could be traced back to its root > theoretically be cognized? > >>> Something other than this must be known to you > especially cause 'at once' > >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > developmental change: Issue > >>> 4 article for discussion > >>> > >>> Haydi, > >>> > >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes > practical mastery and > >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a > lot of people (e.g. > >> sports > >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something > that they do not know > >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They > symbolically master the > >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they > are talking about, > >> that > >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not > been affected in that way, > >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing > shot, or feel the > >> cancer > >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those > affected do. > >>> > >>> I am not saying what people should or should not > do. But I am beware of > >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking > the walk. :-) > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many > reflecting angles in > >> the > >>> direction of unity/identity not our > presuppositions before ... taking me > >> to > >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other > sources you introduce > >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond > Marx assumed more > >> related > >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. > Just I wonder how Ilyenko > >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly > conflictual issue of > >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a > firm idea that "The > >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > Bakhtin and > >> Voloshinov, > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he > discredit 'verbiage' > >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to > Think) as against the > >> varying > >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand > covering , being > >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call > words in dialogues , > >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's > 'how to think' > >> contrasts > >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that > verbalizing is not > >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the > abstract to the concrete) > >>> and here I think some people take him as believing > to think=to act as > >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one > substance whereas he > >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to > a thinking person , > >> that > >>> is , man. > >>> > >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being > contains not-being' as > >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That > goes also with your > >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods > of crises and > >> stabilities > >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults > and other phenomena , > >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which > should thus be. Crises > >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences > not as momentarily > >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five > phases). Mikhailov in that > >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going > (reality/ideality) creates > >>> another quasi-material base as communication > (addressivity) which in this > >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good > paragraph: > >>> > >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > something to me (my > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > David, who knows his > >> Vygotsky > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > was Vygotsky who defined > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > experience of > >> experiences > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > ??????????? ???????????, > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > ???? ??????????? > >> ?????????" > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > text, Vygotsky refers to > >> Marx > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > Marx (in the *German > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > **"does not explain > >> praxis > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > ideas out of material > >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness > follows and arises from > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. > Suchman's work on the > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > action, and H. Garfinkel > >> on > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > work on the radical > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where > I show that even > >>> scientists > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still > find themselves > >>> **knowing** what > >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or > days] after having done > >> it).] > >>> Then communication in words/with words should be > based on previous deeds > >>> if they are to represent some appropriate > knowledge. And I don't know > >> here > >>> how this notion connects to the word's > instantaneous multi-variateness. > >>> > >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more > than a hundred times > >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and > situated action'. He > >>> criticizes other economists for taking the > numerous comings and goings as > >>> leading to the positing of the workers as > accumulating more than they > >> need > >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value > becoming capitalists > >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the > Socialist Bloc yet workers > >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread. > History might take a > >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF > such and such MOVEMENT but > >>> that's theory and not actuality. > >>> > >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and > leave but my thought > >> ensued. > >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow > your other excellent > >>> guidances. > >>> > >>> Best wishes > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > developmental change: Issue > >>> 4 article for discussion > >>> > >>> Haydi, all: > >>> > >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be > the specialist in our > >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences > some discourses in our > >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx, > and dialogism. > >>> > >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of > Hegel: "In its > >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs > from Hegels but is > >> *its > >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of > complete works, Capital, p. 27 > >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, > whereas other scholars > >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the > coming and going during an > >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of > use-value and > >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the > different perspectives > >> of > >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the > exchange (act). This > >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; > that same > >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain > the very existence of > >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical > relation) is a movement of > >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not > exist independently, > >> where > >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the > cause of its parts. > >>> > >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: > something belonging to two > >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order > unpredictable from the > >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that > sociality is experience. > >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both > the old order and the > >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the > capacity for being > >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the > Present, *p. 49). The word, > >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > >>> > >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about > the method of Spinoza: > >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not > confuse the matter: It is > >>> dialectical only because it rests on the > versatility of being, on its > >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of > its concept. This > >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a > dialectical method. At every > >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is > also opened. In the > >> case > >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: > It wants a rule of > >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation > or, at least, of the > >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see > in the Marx I read; and > >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read. > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Michael, > >>> > >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been > opened to the > >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you > but with very little > >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't > claim far greater > >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained. > But the fact is I feel > >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather > call 'appealing' , > >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your > articles , try to > >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. > I'm happy you're sharing > >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they > are very brief but > >> this > >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more > and more from you. I > >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you > so much! > >>> > >>> And I appreciate your replying to : > >>> > >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > >>> Philosophy of the Act* > >>> > >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question. > Bakhtin's acceptance of > >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) > or replacement of > >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of > the act'?? ACT of > >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could > very easily equalize > >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on > depths and essences of > >> what > >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the > actuality of the > >> affairs. > >>> Again you well know I've always seen > word/dialogue/communication as > >> arising > >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical > activity never > >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all > these years all those who > >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now > you base most of your > >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing > Grundrisse if you'd like to go > >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the > way I've read these last > >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many > times though the > >> response > >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised > with it. > >>> > >>> All the best wishes > >>> > >>> Haydi > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > developmental change: Issue 4 > >>> article for discussion > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is > the attribution of ideas > >>> to people. I think about this issue differently. > Ideas, because abstract, > >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses > of our community. We > >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to > developing them, but they > >> always > >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last > paragraphs of *Thinking > >> and > >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but > impossible for one. > >>> > >>> So what the article I authored presents is an > ordering of phenomena in > >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The > description of the emergence > >> of > >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of > Thom's *catastrophe > >> theory*. > >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying > particular > >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an > endeavor as any other > >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what > the paragraph in > >> bullet > >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure > abstraction. It is > >> about a > >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among > other phenomena of > >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a > way in which authors, > >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain > requirements for phenomena to > >> be > >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In > this way, the article > >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for > the methodological > >> steps > >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such > phenomena. I cannot see any > >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate > adult forms of development > >> to > >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes > all of these forms > >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a > change to a > >> qualitatively > >>> new form? This is the question the article answers. > >>> > >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > something to me (my > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > David, who knows his > >> Vygotsky > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > was Vygotsky who defined > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > experience of > >> experiences > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > ??????????? ???????????, > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > ???? ??????????? > >> ?????????" > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > text, Vygotsky refers to > >> Marx > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > Marx (in the *German > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > "does not explain praxis > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > ideas out of material > >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness > follows and arises from > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. > Suchman's work on the > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > action, and H. Garfinkel > >> on > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > work on the radical > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I > show that even > >> scientists > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find > themselves knowing > >> what > >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days] > after having done it). > >>> > >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is > the same that we find in > >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness > [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > >>> anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being > [Sein] (in *German > >>> Ideology*). > >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being > [Sein] from beings > >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when > he shows that > >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant > object only attained in the > >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of > French philosophers, > >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally > Bakhtin (the one of > >> *The > >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy > of the Act* [he, > >>> too] and *The > >>> Philosophy of the Present*). > >>> > >>> I would never claim that consciousness is > individual---the word itself > >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. > *sc?re*] together [Lat. > >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to > be individual, given > >> the > >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to > be otherwise: Marx, > >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> com/catalogs/bookseries/new- > >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/ > >>> > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/> > >>>> * > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Alfredo: > >>>> > >>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can > twist together. > >>>> > >>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major > issues that divided > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. > Isaac Spielrein). > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, > and the adult is not a > >>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen > as a kind of dress > >>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult > development be seen as > >>>> continuing child development by other means: > there is a qualitative > >>>> difference between the adolescent and the young > adult that does not > >> exist > >>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > >>>> > >>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should > he even have tried? > >>> This > >>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from > Wolff-Michael, and also > >>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes > that without rising to > >> the > >>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method > at all. To me that > >>>> necessarily means making the concept of > neoformation more specific and > >>> more > >>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it > much more general and > >>>> consequently abstract. > >>>> > >>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) > and what would it mean > >>> for > >>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has > set a cat amongst the > >>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as > "perizhivanie of > >>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to > suggest that > >> consciousness > >>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have > any consciousness at > >>> all; > >>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness > is essentially > >>>> individual, the product of reflection upon > reflections (and there is a > >>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by > Michael Luntley in the > >>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > >>>> > >>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, > Educational Philosophy and > >> Theory, > >>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > >>>> > >>>> And yet there are two things about > Wolff-Michael's formula that do > >> appeal > >>>> to me: > >>>> > >>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is > essentially differentiation > >>> and > >>>> not replacement of one form by another. If > consciousness is essentially > >>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language > turned back on > >> itself) > >>> it > >>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > >>>> > >>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of > meaning". Of course, > >>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I > get when I turn it > >> back > >>>> on itself.... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* > 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > >>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary > on ?Neoformation: A > >>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >>>> > >>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > >>>> > >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > >>> > > > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > >> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion > on neoformation is > >> now > >>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > >>> > > > >>>>> There recently were questions in this list > concerning adult > >>> development. > >>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which > I think was already > >>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a > developmental > >> turn-over > >>>> in > >>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult > teacher, using and > >>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the > associated law of > >>>> transition > >>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced > the concept in writings > >>>> about > >>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be > issues or challenges > >>>>> specific to the extension of these notions > beyond child development. > >> I > >>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it > think, how and whether > >>>> those > >>>>> interested in adult development find the > contributions present in the > >>>>> article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo > >>>>> ______________________________ __________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > >>> > > >>> >> > >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > >>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental > change: Issue 4 > >>> article > >>>>> for discussion > >>>>> > >>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to > discuss a selected > >>>> article > >>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article > written by > >>> Wolff-Michael > >>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to > Developmental > >> Change?". > >>>>> > >>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made > open access for a > >> brief > >>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of > "neoformation", a Vygotskian > >> notion > >>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but > which is not so common > >> in > >>>> the > >>>>> literature, despite having quite a > methodological import in > >> Vygotsky's > >>>>> writings. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel > discussions and > >> critiques > >>> to > >>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. > Moreover, the article > >> brings > >>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary > (which is open access > >>>> right > >>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for > 1 treat! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The whole issue is published here: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > >>> > > > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the > conversation in the coming > >> days, > >>>> and > >>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper > and not to be shy > >>>> bringing > >>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a > unique opportunity we > >> have > >>>> for > >>>>> digging into the different ways in which > Vygotsky's legacy may live > >> on > >>> in > >>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > research/literature. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 17:14:38 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:14:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <6728a554-f7cc-0b3b-7117-bcdd36a8aaf8@mira.net> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> <6728a554-f7cc-0b3b-7117-bcdd36a8aaf8@mira.net> Message-ID: To add to Andy's invitation... especially those who read French. In this book, you have Lucien S?ve (whom some may know) and scientists write about dialectics and non-linear physics (I only have the print version). Michael https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZoB8T5Ww4KwC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=dialectique+physique+non-lineaire&source=bl&ots=5vhP7kfy64&sig=AKUpaib3cDsaAMYc5GpaMqrDSh4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU1bOHrY3YAhVW8mMKHdCLCq8Q6AEIKTAA Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Huw, I think it is actually problematic to try to draw a > line between "systems observed" and "systems of > observation," though the intention in doing this is clear > enough. I prefer to use expressions like: "what basis does > the concept have in objective reality?" That basis may turn > out to be a firm basis or a very thin basis. How we evaluate > the basis a concept has in reality is by reflection on > /practice/, of course, and it is in practice that a system > of observation and an external system merge - objective > practice. > > I have tried to popularise a wider range of "dialectical > processes" by means of a critique of conceptions of > "non-linear processes" largely gleaned from what people have > said about "dialectical processes" and "non-linear > processes" on XMCA. > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Non-linear% > 20processes%20and%20the%20dialectic.pdf > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/12/2017 11:03 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Regarding analog structures in relation to quality and > > quantity I can perhaps offer the following without knowing > > where this lands specifically to the paper(s), as I've yet > > to read them (on my list). > > > > Briefly, it is useful to take note of two forms of system > > at play. The first are the systems observed (behaviours > > and structures of water, or behaviours and structures part > > of organic life), the second is the system of observation. > > The transferability of quality and quantity across systems > > applies to the system of observation. In both cases the > > quality of the system is of interest. Specifically, this > > quality is concerned with how the system is organised. The > > point about quantity is simply in recognition that when > > quantities accrue, there are tipping points into different > > organisations as a function of systemically recognised > > properties. > > > > I think it is particularly worthwhile for researchers who > > are predominantly focused on text, language or speech to > > attend closely to these points. Because, this, as I see > > it, is the source of what is meant by quality -- a > > definition perhaps hard to extract from a course on > > qualitative research (because it requires a careful study > > of systems). > > > > I am also a little curious about how the discussion has > > been initiated, seemingly primed with a focus on set > > critiques rather than starting with W-M's paper itself. > > David's contributions have frequently served as an > > effective foil in numerous discussions, but then I think > > it would be beneficial to encourage a certain quality of > > discussion rather than curtailing it to the critiques, > > unless that is what is explicitly intended? > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 15 December 2017 at 23:01, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > I heartily agree with the drift of this message, > > David. "The > > law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the > > barest, most abstract description of processes, which > > unlike > > any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any > > actual process of development. Describing the melting > > of ice > > into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what > > temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any > > insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon. > > > > Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in > > the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest > > ranks > > of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the > > leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these > > ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in > > their intellectual battles with the bourgeois > > establishment. > > The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century > > scientific journals I find absurd, > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > > > > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are > > discussing the > > > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if > > there were no qualitative > > > difference between the transformation of ice into > > water and the > > > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, > > or a child into an > > > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > > > > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. > > It might even sometimes > > > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to > > say to children that > > > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how > > one branch of the > > > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. > > Linguists sometimes talk > > > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of > > society and Newton spoke > > > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a > > little game where rabbits > > > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead > > rabbits. But let's not > > > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like > > an actor forgetting > > > that she or he is in character, and an audience > > forgetting that a play > > > is done for pay. > > > > > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they > > increase in quantitative > > > mass without any qualitative change in response to > > the historico-cultural > > > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them > > from his pedology. Adults > > > develop without growing; that is, they change > > behavioral forms without any > > > quantitative change in their mass; that was why > > Vygotsky excused adults > > > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the > > same time; indeed, the > > > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and > > that's why Vygotsky devoted > > > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex > > dynamic unity. > > > > > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to > > understand that it is > > > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a > > very different quality? > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 > > (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on > > ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the > > subject and the object > > >> (THING). What is important is that the relation > > changes, and the question > > >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than > > quantitative, continuous) > > >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form > > has arisen. Michael > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >> > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> -------------------- > > >> Applied Cognitive Science > > >> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >> University of Victoria > > >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >> > > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> > > >> > > >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope > > you confirm , that if we > > >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the > > THING has changed. The > > >> thing remains the same as relative stability other > > than in the process of > > >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. > > Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits > > of talking the talk > > >> which > > >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) > > ignoring the facts that the > > >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer > > the disease and that > > >> the > > >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to > > do a passing shot and > > >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some > > hidden relation , you , > > >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you > > stress that trainers ARE > > >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring > > yourself of not taking the > > >> talk > > >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution > > :-) Then we again find > > >>> ourselves at the same point. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the > > riddle. And this parallels my > > >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > >>> > > >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take > > the contradictory > > >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put > > them on a continuum , > > >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we > > reach H2O as their origin > > >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the > > cause of the leaps and > > >>> neoformations. > > >>> > > >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are > > differing qualities which > > >> must > > >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us > > 'the Measure' as the > > >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > >>> > > >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take > > your time: > > >>> > > >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some > > discourses in our community > > >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > >>> > > >>> and: > > >>> > > >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once > > (pace Bakhtin and > > >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > >>> > > >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also > > distinctive. And if they > > >> are > > >>> , should not they require their due corresponding > > causes? Do not they > > >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said > > continuum so that each > > >>> realization could be traced back to its root > > theoretically be cognized? > > >>> Something other than this must be known to you > > especially cause 'at once' > > >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > > > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue > > >>> 4 article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Haydi, > > >>> > > >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes > > practical mastery and > > >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a > > lot of people (e.g. > > >> sports > > >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something > > that they do not know > > >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They > > symbolically master the > > >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they > > are talking about, > > >> that > > >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not > > been affected in that way, > > >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing > > shot, or feel the > > >> cancer > > >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those > > affected do. > > >>> > > >>> I am not saying what people should or should not > > do. But I am beware of > > >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking > > the walk. :-) > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many > > reflecting angles in > > >> the > > >>> direction of unity/identity not our > > presuppositions before ... taking me > > >> to > > >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other > > sources you introduce > > >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond > > Marx assumed more > > >> related > > >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. > > Just I wonder how Ilyenko > > >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly > > conflictual issue of > > >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a > > firm idea that "The > > >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > > Bakhtin and > > >> Voloshinov, > > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he > > discredit 'verbiage' > > >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to > > Think) as against the > > >> varying > > >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand > > covering , being > > >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call > > words in dialogues , > > >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's > > 'how to think' > > >> contrasts > > >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that > > verbalizing is not > > >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the > > abstract to the concrete) > > >>> and here I think some people take him as believing > > to think=to act as > > >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one > > substance whereas he > > >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to > > a thinking person , > > >> that > > >>> is , man. > > >>> > > >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being > > contains not-being' as > > >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That > > goes also with your > > >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods > > of crises and > > >> stabilities > > >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults > > and other phenomena , > > >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which > > should thus be. Crises > > >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences > > not as momentarily > > >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five > > phases). Mikhailov in that > > >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going > > (reality/ideality) creates > > >>> another quasi-material base as communication > > (addressivity) which in this > > >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good > > paragraph: > > >>> > > >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > > something to me (my > > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > > David, who knows his > > >> Vygotsky > > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > > was Vygotsky who defined > > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > > experience of > > >> experiences > > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > > ??????????? ???????????, > > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > > ???? ??????????? > > >> ?????????" > > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > > text, Vygotsky refers to > > >> Marx > > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > > Marx (in the *German > > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > > **"does not explain > > >> praxis > > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > > ideas out of material > > >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness > > follows and arises from > > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. > > Suchman's work on the > > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > > action, and H. Garfinkel > > >> on > > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > > work on the radical > > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where > > I show that even > > >>> scientists > > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still > > find themselves > > >>> **knowing** what > > >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or > > days] after having done > > >> it).] > > >>> Then communication in words/with words should be > > based on previous deeds > > >>> if they are to represent some appropriate > > knowledge. And I don't know > > >> here > > >>> how this notion connects to the word's > > instantaneous multi-variateness. > > >>> > > >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more > > than a hundred times > > >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and > > situated action'. He > > >>> criticizes other economists for taking the > > numerous comings and goings as > > >>> leading to the positing of the workers as > > accumulating more than they > > >> need > > >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value > > becoming capitalists > > >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the > > Socialist Bloc yet workers > > >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread. > > History might take a > > >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF > > such and such MOVEMENT but > > >>> that's theory and not actuality. > > >>> > > >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and > > leave but my thought > > >> ensued. > > >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow > > your other excellent > > >>> guidances. > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue > > >>> 4 article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Haydi, all: > > >>> > > >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be > > the specialist in our > > >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences > > some discourses in our > > >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx, > > and dialogism. > > >>> > > >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of > > Hegel: "In its > > >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs > > from Hegels but is > > >> *its > > >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of > > complete works, Capital, p. 27 > > >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, > > whereas other scholars > > >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the > > coming and going during an > > >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of > > use-value and > > >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the > > different perspectives > > >> of > > >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the > > exchange (act). This > > >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; > > that same > > >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain > > the very existence of > > >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical > > relation) is a movement of > > >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not > > exist independently, > > >> where > > >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the > > cause of its parts. > > >>> > > >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: > > something belonging to two > > >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order > > unpredictable from the > > >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that > > sociality is experience. > > >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both > > the old order and the > > >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the > > capacity for being > > >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the > > Present, *p. 49). The word, > > >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > > Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > >>> > > >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about > > the method of Spinoza: > > >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not > > confuse the matter: It is > > >>> dialectical only because it rests on the > > versatility of being, on its > > >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of > > its concept. This > > >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a > > dialectical method. At every > > >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is > > also opened. In the > > >> case > > >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: > > It wants a rule of > > >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation > > or, at least, of the > > >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see > > in the Marx I read; and > > >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello Michael, > > >>> > > >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been > > opened to the > > >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you > > but with very little > > >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't > > claim far greater > > >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained. > > But the fact is I feel > > >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather > > call 'appealing' , > > >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your > > articles , try to > > >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. > > I'm happy you're sharing > > >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they > > are very brief but > > >> this > > >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more > > and more from you. I > > >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you > > so much! > > >>> > > >>> And I appreciate your replying to : > > >>> > > >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Act* > > >>> > > >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question. > > Bakhtin's acceptance of > > >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) > > or replacement of > > >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of > > the act'?? ACT of > > >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could > > very easily equalize > > >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on > > depths and essences of > > >> what > > >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the > > actuality of the > > >> affairs. > > >>> Again you well know I've always seen > > word/dialogue/communication as > > >> arising > > >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical > > activity never > > >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all > > these years all those who > > >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now > > you base most of your > > >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing > > Grundrisse if you'd like to go > > >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the > > way I've read these last > > >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many > > times though the > > >> response > > >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised > > with it. > > >>> > > >>> All the best wishes > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > > >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue 4 > > >>> article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is > > the attribution of ideas > > >>> to people. I think about this issue differently. > > Ideas, because abstract, > > >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses > > of our community. We > > >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to > > developing them, but they > > >> always > > >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last > > paragraphs of *Thinking > > >> and > > >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but > > impossible for one. > > >>> > > >>> So what the article I authored presents is an > > ordering of phenomena in > > >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The > > description of the emergence > > >> of > > >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of > > Thom's *catastrophe > > >> theory*. > > >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying > > particular > > >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an > > endeavor as any other > > >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what > > the paragraph in > > >> bullet > > >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure > > abstraction. It is > > >> about a > > >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among > > other phenomena of > > >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a > > way in which authors, > > >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain > > requirements for phenomena to > > >> be > > >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In > > this way, the article > > >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for > > the methodological > > >> steps > > >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such > > phenomena. I cannot see any > > >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate > > adult forms of development > > >> to > > >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes > > all of these forms > > >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a > > change to a > > >> qualitatively > > >>> new form? This is the question the article answers. > > >>> > > >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > > something to me (my > > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > > David, who knows his > > >> Vygotsky > > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > > was Vygotsky who defined > > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > > experience of > > >> experiences > > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > > ??????????? ???????????, > > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > > ???? ??????????? > > >> ?????????" > > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > > text, Vygotsky refers to > > >> Marx > > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > > Marx (in the *German > > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > > "does not explain praxis > > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > > ideas out of material > > >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness > > follows and arises from > > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. > > Suchman's work on the > > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > > action, and H. Garfinkel > > >> on > > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > > work on the radical > > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I > > show that even > > >> scientists > > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find > > themselves knowing > > >> what > > >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days] > > after having done it). > > >>> > > >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is > > the same that we find in > > >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness > > [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > > >>> anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being > > [Sein] (in *German > > >>> Ideology*). > > >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being > > [Sein] from beings > > >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when > > he shows that > > >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant > > object only attained in the > > >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of > > French philosophers, > > >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally > > Bakhtin (the one of > > >> *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy > > of the Act* [he, > > >>> too] and *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Present*). > > >>> > > >>> I would never claim that consciousness is > > individual---the word itself > > >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. > > *sc?re*] together [Lat. > > >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to > > be individual, given > > >> the > > >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to > > be otherwise: Marx, > > >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > com/catalogs/bookseries/new- > > >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/> > > >>>> * > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Alfredo: > > >>>> > > >>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can > > twist together. > > >>>> > > >>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major > > issues that divided > > >>> Vygotsky > > >>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. > > Isaac Spielrein). > > >>> Vygotsky > > >>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, > > and the adult is not a > > >>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen > > as a kind of dress > > >>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult > > development be seen as > > >>>> continuing child development by other means: > > there is a qualitative > > >>>> difference between the adolescent and the young > > adult that does not > > >> exist > > >>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > >>>> > > >>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should > > he even have tried? > > >>> This > > >>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from > > Wolff-Michael, and also > > >>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes > > that without rising to > > >> the > > >>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method > > at all. To me that > > >>>> necessarily means making the concept of > > neoformation more specific and > > >>> more > > >>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it > > much more general and > > >>>> consequently abstract. > > >>>> > > >>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) > > and what would it mean > > >>> for > > >>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has > > set a cat amongst the > > >>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as > > "perizhivanie of > > >>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to > > suggest that > > >> consciousness > > >>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have > > any consciousness at > > >>> all; > > >>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness > > is essentially > > >>>> individual, the product of reflection upon > > reflections (and there is a > > >>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by > > Michael Luntley in the > > >>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > >>>> > > >>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, > > Educational Philosophy and > > >> Theory, > > >>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > >>>> > > >>>> And yet there are two things about > > Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > >> appeal > > >>>> to me: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is > > essentially differentiation > > >>> and > > >>>> not replacement of one form by another. If > > consciousness is essentially > > >>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language > > turned back on > > >> itself) > > >>> it > > >>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > >>>> > > >>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of > > meaning". Of course, > > >>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I > > get when I turn it > > >> back > > >>>> on itself.... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> David Kellogg > > >>>> > > >>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* > > 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > >>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary > > on ?Neoformation: A > > >>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > >>>> > > >>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > >> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion > > on neoformation is > > >> now > > >>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>> There recently were questions in this list > > concerning adult > > >>> development. > > >>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which > > I think was already > > >>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a > > developmental > > >> turn-over > > >>>> in > > >>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult > > teacher, using and > > >>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the > > associated law of > > >>>> transition > > >>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced > > the concept in writings > > >>>> about > > >>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be > > issues or challenges > > >>>>> specific to the extension of these notions > > beyond child development. > > >> I > > >>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it > > think, how and whether > > >>>> those > > >>>>> interested in adult development find the > > contributions present in the > > >>>>> article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Alfredo > > >>>>> ______________________________ __________ > > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > >>> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > >>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental > > change: Issue 4 > > >>> article > > >>>>> for discussion > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to > > discuss a selected > > >>>> article > > >>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article > > written by > > >>> Wolff-Michael > > >>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to > > Developmental > > >> Change?". > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made > > open access for a > > >> brief > > >>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of > > "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > >> notion > > >>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but > > which is not so common > > >> in > > >>>> the > > >>>>> literature, despite having quite a > > methodological import in > > >> Vygotsky's > > >>>>> writings. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel > > discussions and > > >> critiques > > >>> to > > >>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. > > Moreover, the article > > >> brings > > >>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary > > (which is open access > > >>>> right > > >>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for > > 1 treat! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The whole issue is published here: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the > > conversation in the coming > > >> days, > > >>>> and > > >>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper > > and not to be shy > > >>>> bringing > > >>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a > > unique opportunity we > > >> have > > >>>> for > > >>>>> digging into the different ways in which > > Vygotsky's legacy may live > > >> on > > >>> in > > >>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > > research/literature. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Alfredo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 17:40:18 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:40:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <6728a554-f7cc-0b3b-7117-bcdd36a8aaf8@mira.net> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> <0c0fd039-20b8-5500-9620-344f9e08e3ae@mira.net> <6728a554-f7cc-0b3b-7117-bcdd36a8aaf8@mira.net> Message-ID: More specifically, the "external system" is a (viable) projection. The system of observation (or system of observing) is recognising the role of the observer (as a system). It becomes quite clear-cut in considering those who do not recognise the "blind spot" of a system of observation, i.e. when they do not distinguish an "out there" from the model imposed (though I take your reference, Andy, to be a short-cut), hence the distinction between "hard systems" and "soft systems". It's bearing upon the discussion is that the observer's search for organisational features and discernment of appropriate boundaries is maintained across the two overt systems in the knowledge of generalisable systemic behaviour. Hence when David laments the comparison of water with a complex organ, there is room for overlooking that the commensurability is not of these things, but of the respective search for organisational structures and their related features, which is a property of the observer's method and not the respective overt phenomena. It's late here, will hopefully post something on Michael's paper soon. Best, Huw On 16 December 2017 at 00:55, Andy Blunden wrote: > Huw, I think it is actually problematic to try to draw a > line between "systems observed" and "systems of > observation," though the intention in doing this is clear > enough. I prefer to use expressions like: "what basis does > the concept have in objective reality?" That basis may turn > out to be a firm basis or a very thin basis. How we evaluate > the basis a concept has in reality is by reflection on > /practice/, of course, and it is in practice that a system > of observation and an external system merge - objective > practice. > > I have tried to popularise a wider range of "dialectical > processes" by means of a critique of conceptions of > "non-linear processes" largely gleaned from what people have > said about "dialectical processes" and "non-linear > processes" on XMCA. > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Non-linear% > 20processes%20and%20the%20dialectic.pdf > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/12/2017 11:03 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Regarding analog structures in relation to quality and > > quantity I can perhaps offer the following without knowing > > where this lands specifically to the paper(s), as I've yet > > to read them (on my list). > > > > Briefly, it is useful to take note of two forms of system > > at play. The first are the systems observed (behaviours > > and structures of water, or behaviours and structures part > > of organic life), the second is the system of observation. > > The transferability of quality and quantity across systems > > applies to the system of observation. In both cases the > > quality of the system is of interest. Specifically, this > > quality is concerned with how the system is organised. The > > point about quantity is simply in recognition that when > > quantities accrue, there are tipping points into different > > organisations as a function of systemically recognised > > properties. > > > > I think it is particularly worthwhile for researchers who > > are predominantly focused on text, language or speech to > > attend closely to these points. Because, this, as I see > > it, is the source of what is meant by quality -- a > > definition perhaps hard to extract from a course on > > qualitative research (because it requires a careful study > > of systems). > > > > I am also a little curious about how the discussion has > > been initiated, seemingly primed with a focus on set > > critiques rather than starting with W-M's paper itself. > > David's contributions have frequently served as an > > effective foil in numerous discussions, but then I think > > it would be beneficial to encourage a certain quality of > > discussion rather than curtailing it to the critiques, > > unless that is what is explicitly intended? > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 15 December 2017 at 23:01, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > I heartily agree with the drift of this message, > > David. "The > > law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the > > barest, most abstract description of processes, which > > unlike > > any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any > > actual process of development. Describing the melting > > of ice > > into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what > > temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any > > insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon. > > > > Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in > > the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest > > ranks > > of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the > > leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these > > ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in > > their intellectual battles with the bourgeois > > establishment. > > The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century > > scientific journals I find absurd, > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- > > > > > > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are > > discussing the > > > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if > > there were no qualitative > > > difference between the transformation of ice into > > water and the > > > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, > > or a child into an > > > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? > > > > > > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. > > It might even sometimes > > > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to > > say to children that > > > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how > > one branch of the > > > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. > > Linguists sometimes talk > > > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of > > society and Newton spoke > > > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a > > little game where rabbits > > > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead > > rabbits. But let's not > > > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like > > an actor forgetting > > > that she or he is in character, and an audience > > forgetting that a play > > > is done for pay. > > > > > > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they > > increase in quantitative > > > mass without any qualitative change in response to > > the historico-cultural > > > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them > > from his pedology. Adults > > > develop without growing; that is, they change > > behavioral forms without any > > > quantitative change in their mass; that was why > > Vygotsky excused adults > > > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the > > same time; indeed, the > > > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and > > that's why Vygotsky devoted > > > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex > > dynamic unity. > > > > > > Isn't the first step in understanding it to > > understand that it is > > > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a > > very different quality? > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 > > (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on > > ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the > > subject and the object > > >> (THING). What is important is that the relation > > changes, and the question > > >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than > > quantitative, continuous) > > >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form > > has arisen. Michael > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >> > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> -------------------- > > >> Applied Cognitive Science > > >> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >> University of Victoria > > >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >> > > >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >> > > >> > > >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope > > you confirm , that if we > > >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the > > THING has changed. The > > >> thing remains the same as relative stability other > > than in the process of > > >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. > > Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits > > of talking the talk > > >> which > > >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) > > ignoring the facts that the > > >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer > > the disease and that > > >> the > > >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to > > do a passing shot and > > >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some > > hidden relation , you , > > >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you > > stress that trainers ARE > > >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring > > yourself of not taking the > > >> talk > > >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution > > :-) Then we again find > > >>> ourselves at the same point. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the > > riddle. And this parallels my > > >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > >>> > > >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take > > the contradictory > > >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put > > them on a continuum , > > >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we > > reach H2O as their origin > > >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the > > cause of the leaps and > > >>> neoformations. > > >>> > > >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are > > differing qualities which > > >> must > > >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us > > 'the Measure' as the > > >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > >>> > > >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take > > your time: > > >>> > > >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some > > discourses in our community > > >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > >>> > > >>> and: > > >>> > > >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once > > (pace Bakhtin and > > >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > >>> > > >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also > > distinctive. And if they > > >> are > > >>> , should not they require their due corresponding > > causes? Do not they > > >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said > > continuum so that each > > >>> realization could be traced back to its root > > theoretically be cognized? > > >>> Something other than this must be known to you > > especially cause 'at once' > > >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > > > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue > > >>> 4 article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Haydi, > > >>> > > >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes > > practical mastery and > > >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a > > lot of people (e.g. > > >> sports > > >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something > > that they do not know > > >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They > > symbolically master the > > >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they > > are talking about, > > >> that > > >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not > > been affected in that way, > > >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing > > shot, or feel the > > >> cancer > > >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those > > affected do. > > >>> > > >>> I am not saying what people should or should not > > do. But I am beware of > > >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking > > the walk. :-) > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many > > reflecting angles in > > >> the > > >>> direction of unity/identity not our > > presuppositions before ... taking me > > >> to > > >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other > > sources you introduce > > >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond > > Marx assumed more > > >> related > > >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. > > Just I wonder how Ilyenko > > >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly > > conflictual issue of > > >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a > > firm idea that "The > > >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > > Bakhtin and > > >> Voloshinov, > > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he > > discredit 'verbiage' > > >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to > > Think) as against the > > >> varying > > >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand > > covering , being > > >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call > > words in dialogues , > > >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's > > 'how to think' > > >> contrasts > > >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that > > verbalizing is not > > >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the > > abstract to the concrete) > > >>> and here I think some people take him as believing > > to think=to act as > > >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one > > substance whereas he > > >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to > > a thinking person , > > >> that > > >>> is , man. > > >>> > > >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being > > contains not-being' as > > >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That > > goes also with your > > >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods > > of crises and > > >> stabilities > > >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults > > and other phenomena , > > >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which > > should thus be. Crises > > >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences > > not as momentarily > > >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five > > phases). Mikhailov in that > > >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going > > (reality/ideality) creates > > >>> another quasi-material base as communication > > (addressivity) which in this > > >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good > > paragraph: > > >>> > > >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > > something to me (my > > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > > David, who knows his > > >> Vygotsky > > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > > was Vygotsky who defined > > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > > experience of > > >> experiences > > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > > ??????????? ???????????, > > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > > ???? ??????????? > > >> ?????????" > > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > > text, Vygotsky refers to > > >> Marx > > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > > Marx (in the *German > > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > > **"does not explain > > >> praxis > > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > > ideas out of material > > >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness > > follows and arises from > > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. > > Suchman's work on the > > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > > action, and H. Garfinkel > > >> on > > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > > work on the radical > > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where > > I show that even > > >>> scientists > > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still > > find themselves > > >>> **knowing** what > > >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or > > days] after having done > > >> it).] > > >>> Then communication in words/with words should be > > based on previous deeds > > >>> if they are to represent some appropriate > > knowledge. And I don't know > > >> here > > >>> how this notion connects to the word's > > instantaneous multi-variateness. > > >>> > > >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more > > than a hundred times > > >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and > > situated action'. He > > >>> criticizes other economists for taking the > > numerous comings and goings as > > >>> leading to the positing of the workers as > > accumulating more than they > > >> need > > >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value > > becoming capitalists > > >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the > > Socialist Bloc yet workers > > >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread. > > History might take a > > >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF > > such and such MOVEMENT but > > >>> that's theory and not actuality. > > >>> > > >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and > > leave but my thought > > >> ensued. > > >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow > > your other excellent > > >>> guidances. > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue > > >>> 4 article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Haydi, all: > > >>> > > >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be > > the specialist in our > > >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences > > some discourses in our > > >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx, > > and dialogism. > > >>> > > >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of > > Hegel: "In its > > >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs > > from Hegels but is > > >> *its > > >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of > > complete works, Capital, p. 27 > > >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, > > whereas other scholars > > >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the > > coming and going during an > > >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of > > use-value and > > >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the > > different perspectives > > >> of > > >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the > > exchange (act). This > > >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; > > that same > > >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain > > the very existence of > > >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical > > relation) is a movement of > > >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not > > exist independently, > > >> where > > >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the > > cause of its parts. > > >>> > > >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: > > something belonging to two > > >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order > > unpredictable from the > > >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that > > sociality is experience. > > >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both > > the old order and the > > >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the > > capacity for being > > >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the > > Present, *p. 49). The word, > > >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace > > Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > > >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > >>> > > >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about > > the method of Spinoza: > > >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not > > confuse the matter: It is > > >>> dialectical only because it rests on the > > versatility of being, on its > > >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of > > its concept. This > > >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a > > dialectical method. At every > > >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is > > also opened. In the > > >> case > > >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: > > It wants a rule of > > >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation > > or, at least, of the > > >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see > > in the Marx I read; and > > >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello Michael, > > >>> > > >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been > > opened to the > > >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you > > but with very little > > >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't > > claim far greater > > >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained. > > But the fact is I feel > > >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather > > call 'appealing' , > > >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your > > articles , try to > > >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. > > I'm happy you're sharing > > >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they > > are very brief but > > >> this > > >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more > > and more from you. I > > >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you > > so much! > > >>> > > >>> And I appreciate your replying to : > > >>> > > >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Act* > > >>> > > >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question. > > Bakhtin's acceptance of > > >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) > > or replacement of > > >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of > > the act'?? ACT of > > >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could > > very easily equalize > > >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on > > depths and essences of > > >> what > > >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the > > actuality of the > > >> affairs. > > >>> Again you well know I've always seen > > word/dialogue/communication as > > >> arising > > >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical > > activity never > > >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all > > these years all those who > > >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now > > you base most of your > > >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing > > Grundrisse if you'd like to go > > >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the > > way I've read these last > > >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many > > times though the > > >> response > > >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised > > with it. > > >>> > > >>> All the best wishes > > >>> > > >>> Haydi > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > > > > > >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > > >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and > > developmental change: Issue 4 > > >>> article for discussion > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is > > the attribution of ideas > > >>> to people. I think about this issue differently. > > Ideas, because abstract, > > >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses > > of our community. We > > >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to > > developing them, but they > > >> always > > >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last > > paragraphs of *Thinking > > >> and > > >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but > > impossible for one. > > >>> > > >>> So what the article I authored presents is an > > ordering of phenomena in > > >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The > > description of the emergence > > >> of > > >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of > > Thom's *catastrophe > > >> theory*. > > >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying > > particular > > >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an > > endeavor as any other > > >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what > > the paragraph in > > >> bullet > > >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure > > abstraction. It is > > >> about a > > >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among > > other phenomena of > > >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a > > way in which authors, > > >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain > > requirements for phenomena to > > >> be > > >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In > > this way, the article > > >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for > > the methodological > > >> steps > > >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such > > phenomena. I cannot see any > > >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate > > adult forms of development > > >> to > > >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes > > all of these forms > > >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a > > change to a > > >> qualitatively > > >>> new form? This is the question the article answers. > > >>> > > >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes > > something to me (my > > >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that > > David, who knows his > > >> Vygotsky > > >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It > > was Vygotsky who defined > > >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the > > experience of > > >> experiences > > >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of > > objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > >>> [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? > > ??????????? ???????????, > > >>> ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? > > ???? ??????????? > > >> ?????????" > > >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same > > text, Vygotsky refers to > > >> Marx > > >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor. > > Marx (in the *German > > >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history > > "does not explain praxis > > >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of > > ideas out of material > > >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness > > follows and arises from > > >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. > > Suchman's work on the > > >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated > > action, and H. Garfinkel > > >> on > > >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own > > work on the radical > > >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I > > show that even > > >> scientists > > >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find > > themselves knowing > > >> what > > >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days] > > after having done it). > > >>> > > >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is > > the same that we find in > > >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness > > [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > > >>> anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being > > [Sein] (in *German > > >>> Ideology*). > > >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being > > [Sein] from beings > > >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when > > he shows that > > >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant > > object only attained in the > > >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of > > French philosophers, > > >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally > > Bakhtin (the one of > > >> *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy > > of the Act* [he, > > >>> too] and *The > > >>> Philosophy of the Present*). > > >>> > > >>> I would never claim that consciousness is > > individual---the word itself > > >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. > > *sc?re*] together [Lat. > > >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to > > be individual, given > > >> the > > >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to > > be otherwise: Marx, > > >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > >>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >>> -------------------- > > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > > >>> University of Victoria > > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > >>> > com/catalogs/bookseries/new- > > >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > >>> > > > > > >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > >> mathematics-of-mathematics/> > > >>>> * > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Alfredo: > > >>>> > > >>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can > > twist together. > > >>>> > > >>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major > > issues that divided > > >>> Vygotsky > > >>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. > > Isaac Spielrein). > > >>> Vygotsky > > >>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, > > and the adult is not a > > >>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen > > as a kind of dress > > >>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult > > development be seen as > > >>>> continuing child development by other means: > > there is a qualitative > > >>>> difference between the adolescent and the young > > adult that does not > > >> exist > > >>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > >>>> > > >>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should > > he even have tried? > > >>> This > > >>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from > > Wolff-Michael, and also > > >>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes > > that without rising to > > >> the > > >>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method > > at all. To me that > > >>>> necessarily means making the concept of > > neoformation more specific and > > >>> more > > >>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it > > much more general and > > >>>> consequently abstract. > > >>>> > > >>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) > > and what would it mean > > >>> for > > >>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has > > set a cat amongst the > > >>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as > > "perizhivanie of > > >>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to > > suggest that > > >> consciousness > > >>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have > > any consciousness at > > >>> all; > > >>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness > > is essentially > > >>>> individual, the product of reflection upon > > reflections (and there is a > > >>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by > > Michael Luntley in the > > >>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > >>>> > > >>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, > > Educational Philosophy and > > >> Theory, > > >>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > >>>> > > >>>> And yet there are two things about > > Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > >> appeal > > >>>> to me: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is > > essentially differentiation > > >>> and > > >>>> not replacement of one form by another. If > > consciousness is essentially > > >>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language > > turned back on > > >> itself) > > >>> it > > >>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > >>>> > > >>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of > > meaning". Of course, > > >>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I > > get when I turn it > > >> back > > >>>> on itself.... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> David Kellogg > > >>>> > > >>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* > > 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > >>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary > > on ?Neoformation: A > > >>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > >>>> > > >>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > >> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion > > on neoformation is > > >> now > > >>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>> There recently were questions in this list > > concerning adult > > >>> development. > > >>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which > > I think was already > > >>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a > > developmental > > >> turn-over > > >>>> in > > >>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult > > teacher, using and > > >>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the > > associated law of > > >>>> transition > > >>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced > > the concept in writings > > >>>> about > > >>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be > > issues or challenges > > >>>>> specific to the extension of these notions > > beyond child development. > > >> I > > >>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it > > think, how and whether > > >>>> those > > >>>>> interested in adult development find the > > contributions present in the > > >>>>> article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Alfredo > > >>>>> ______________________________ __________ > > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > >>> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > >>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental > > change: Issue 4 > > >>> article > > >>>>> for discussion > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to > > discuss a selected > > >>>> article > > >>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article > > written by > > >>> Wolff-Michael > > >>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to > > Developmental > > >> Change?". > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made > > open access for a > > >> brief > > >>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of > > "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > >> notion > > >>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but > > which is not so common > > >> in > > >>>> the > > >>>>> literature, despite having quite a > > methodological import in > > >> Vygotsky's > > >>>>> writings. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel > > discussions and > > >> critiques > > >>> to > > >>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. > > Moreover, the article > > >> brings > > >>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary > > (which is open access > > >>>> right > > >>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for > > 1 treat! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The whole issue is published here: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/ > > toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the > > conversation in the coming > > >> days, > > >>>> and > > >>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper > > and not to be shy > > >>>> bringing > > >>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a > > unique opportunity we > > >> have > > >>>> for > > >>>>> digging into the different ways in which > > Vygotsky's legacy may live > > >> on > > >>> in > > >>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > > research/literature. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Alfredo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > From billkerr@gmail.com Fri Dec 15 23:38:12 2017 From: billkerr@gmail.com (Bill Kerr) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:08:12 +0930 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: hi Alfredo, I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a free download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or purchase. Interested in this discussion. Thanks, Bill Kerr On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > writings. > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > The whole issue is published here: > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > Alfredo > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Dec 15 23:43:35 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:43:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: attached, Bill a ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > hi Alfredo, > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a free > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or purchase. > > Interested in this discussion. > Thanks, > Bill Kerr > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > >> Steemed xmca'ers, >> >> >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". >> >> >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's >> writings. >> >> >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >> >> >> The whole issue is published here: >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >> >> >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Looking Back to the Future A Response to Kellogg.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 520339 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171216/d633c4cd/attachment-0001.pdf From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sat Dec 16 00:55:15 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 08:55:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> , Message-ID: <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Thanks, Andy, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion attached, Bill a ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > hi Alfredo, > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a free > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or purchase. > > Interested in this discussion. > Thanks, > Bill Kerr > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > >> Steemed xmca'ers, >> >> >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". >> >> >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's >> writings. >> >> >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >> >> >> The whole issue is published here: >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >> >> >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Dec 16 09:43:58 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1388489865.7276226.1513189837298@mail.yahoo.com> <1273127986.8085860.1513255550696@mail.yahoo.com> <259465118.9166692.1513334557069@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1273893529.606936.1513446238970@mail.yahoo.com> Hello friends, It's my own fault to begin when I reach a point to say 'It's against my preparedness'. Why should Michael pay for my sins! It seems a world strange for you not to see 'process' , 'development' but invest so much in 'continuum' as literally co-ordinate and in kinship with 'continuous' which Michael uses. Additionally you cannot see 'differing qualities'? What does differing convey to your good mind? What does 'ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICTORY ASPECTS' convey to your holy inference? And many other allusions in the writing of this ever little learner of all time! You're focusing on protests or enlightening? 'Differing qualities' is so hugely threatening than your wording of "as if there were no qualitative DIFFERENCE"!! Old (in double sense) Andy should have gotten my 'contradictory' as referring to his expression indicating that it's CONTRADICTION which causes any movement which Michael does not deny. The thing which accumulates up to a certain point is the CAUSE which brings up a NEW/ER which is contrary to the OLD/ER. It was just a sketch. If the error lies in the way it has been presented , it would have been very grateful to me to see you put it in the proper display. But if you oppose the whole thing in Nature... below: Andy recalls his "Lenin only". Does he not say dialectics is the science of the trio : Nature,Society,Thinking? What does Ilyenko say in this respect? Let alone Marx. Let Marx not be! Millions of opponents. Ernesto Laclau/Chantal Mouffe play and sing better than anyone! But the Battle is ON-line!! each day. My 'continuum' right or wrong did not mean a line on which to put three dots of the three contradictory wholes#entities. Such a take is not in accord with my whole writing. It represents a spiral and a spiral moves , revolves. And a spiral though wholly tends towards ONWARDS has TURNS not Dots on its move. And turns know no beginnings or endings like substance of being and eternity. They turn and turn and ARE turns for us but not turns for themselves as they relate#connect to other turns and the turning of the whole. With our mind eye (epistemology) we might create fabricated points but with our corporeal eyes we? cannot even gaze at each one turn cause we begin to feel turn ourselves falling down as with the gaze at the roads , incidentally if the gaze endures , a fancy line might begin to dance before our very eyes. ? ? Please don't offer piece by piece in examples to correct me. Don't say neonate is/is not the newer quality of a becoming of an older quality the embryo , etc. say if Vygotsky believes in man being ensemble of social relations and what's this problem really? What glue attaches the body with the body with the body so that a club forms in which the many body instances of the club begin to dance at the tempo of the beats and drinks and dranks and drunks. This is the drop entering ... . On man it regresses to unicell in its relation to its tightiest confinement and if it was not for the leaps and bounds and mutations and not gradations , how could the falling man whisper onto the other to RISE to their feet to keep up to the relation bequeathed to them! And now some/many try to forcefully and naively inject REDUNDANT HUMANISM/MORALISM in such a significant social relations!! IN OUR SCHOOL THE ENSEMBLER IS THE SACRIFICER NOT THE JOINER!! Now the drop has become a valued moment. If Marx does not hurt , he also takes us in regression and retrospect to clan , commune , etc. along with it to how MORE and the transformation of MORE becomes our key solvent of the riddle of our current misery. More (produce later all along extra hands) with clan (closed) and the commune (closed) and the feudalite (initially closed) brings up FREEDOM? for the attached farmer (no more being necessary to being chained bodily soul-ly to the soil/earth/land and to the master/landowner/feudal. A while artisanship/craftsmanship helps independence. Needs arise for bartering and then commerce. Villages need to be connected on crossroads. Exchange and surplus IS ,yet, subsistence as basis prevails. This moment of MORE reaches a point where hoarding of it takes place. And to make a long story short , it's this sufficient accumulation which gives impetus to merchants first to indutrialists afterwards to gather many previously free men (farmers artisans) under the same roof so that they could work get wages. All this narration?? is to say that even commodity (previously produce product) which unites in itself use and value has its roots in older moments/turns/alternate peaks. The story of worker apparently free but actually chained to the CONDITIONS which he himself creates with his labour inevitable to his un-volitional status might need time and assurances. This should be continued but will not be. Certainly corrections welcome. Haydi? ? ? ? From: David Kellogg To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 16 December 2017, 2:10:51 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Wolff-Michael, Haydi-- Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are discussing the "transformation of quality into quantity" as if there were no qualitative difference between the transformation of ice into water and the "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate, or a child into an adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse? Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same. It might even sometimes be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to say to children that "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how one branch of the dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day. Linguists sometimes talk about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of society and Newton spoke of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a little game where rabbits "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead rabbits. But let's not forget how different these phenomena are; it's like an actor forgetting that she or he is in character, and an audience forgetting that a play is done for pay. Embryos grow without developing: that is, they increase in quantitative mass without any qualitative change in response to the historico-cultural environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them from his pedology. Adults develop without growing; that is, they change behavioral forms without any quantitative change in their mass; that was why Vygotsky excused adults from his pedology. Children do both at one and the same time; indeed, the two processes are inextricably interlinked, and that's why Vygotsky devoted the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex dynamic unity. Isn't the first step in understanding it to understand that it is a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a very different quality? David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the subject and the object > (THING). What is important is that the relation changes, and the question > is whether there is a qualitative (rather than quantitative, continuous) > change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form has arisen. Michael > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope you confirm , that if we > change our lens each time , it does not mean the THING has changed. The > thing remains the same as relative stability other than in the process of > DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on. Thanks! > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM, wrote: > > > Michael > > > > Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits of talking the talk > which > > however needs , as you say , mastery , :-) ignoring the facts that the > > surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer the disease and that > the > > coach trains the champions while he is not able to do a passing shot and > > that this might lead us to the discovery of some hidden relation , you , > > however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you stress that trainers ARE > > NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring yourself of not taking the > talk > > instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution :-) Then we again find > > ourselves at the same point. > > > > Thanks you give me examples to simplify the riddle. And this parallels my > > want of learning from you really not complimentarily. > > > > Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take the contradictory > > ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put them on a continuum , > > process , movement and delve into it so that we reach H2O as their origin > > and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the cause of the leaps and > > neoformations. > > > > Neoformations as you positively believe are differing qualities which > must > > have their due corresponding causes. You give us 'the Measure' as the > > yardstick and we must try to learn about it. > > > > That said , we return to what triggered me to take your time: > > > > [I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our community > > make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.] > > > > and: > > > > [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > > Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)] > > > > I'm thinking if these several things are also distinctive. And if they > are > > , should not they require their due corresponding causes? Do not they > > require , in turn , to be put on the said continuum so that each > > realization could be traced back to its root theoretically be cognized? > > Something other than this must be known to you especially cause 'at once' > > might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity. > > > > Haydi > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* Haydi Zulfei > > *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05 > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > > 4 article for discussion > > > > Haydi, > > > > Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes practical mastery and > > symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a lot of people (e.g. > sports > > journalists, surgeons) talking about something that they do not know > > themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They symbolically master the > > something, but they do not really "know" what they are talking about, > that > > is, they have not lived (through) it, have not been affected in that way, > > have never been able to play a pass, do a passing shot, or feel the > cancer > > in and with their bodies in the way that those affected do. > > > > I am not saying what people should or should not do. But I am beware of > > those who talk the talk while incapable of walking the walk. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > > > > Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many reflecting angles in > the > > direction of unity/identity not our presuppositions before ... taking me > to > > reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other sources you introduce > > though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond Marx assumed more > related > > to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'. Just I wonder how Ilyenko > > (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly conflictual issue of > > word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a firm idea that "The > > word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and > Voloshinov, > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he discredit 'verbiage' > > including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to Think) as against the > varying > > contents (arising from activities) which demand covering , being > > realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call words in dialogues , > > discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's 'how to think' > contrasts > > with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that verbalizing is not > > necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the abstract to the concrete) > > and here I think some people take him as believing to think=to act as > > connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one substance whereas he > > attributes the coming into existence of thought to a thinking person , > that > > is , man. > > > > Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being contains not-being' as > > moving without stops/stability/existences. That goes also with your > > discussion with David as referring to the periods of crises and > stabilities > > aside from other differences applying it to adults and other phenomena , > > that is , the universality of the concept , which should thus be. Crises > > COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences not as momentarily > > dissipating phenomena (your comment on five phases). Mikhailov in that > > quote also puts aside the coming and going (reality/ideality) creates > > another quasi-material base as communication (addressivity) which in this > > form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good paragraph: > > > > [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > Vygotsky > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > experiences > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > ?????????" > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > Marx > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history **"does not explain > praxis > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > > praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness follows and arises from > > praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L. Suchman's work on the > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > on > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where I show that even > > scientists > > having done some procedure for 30 years** **still find themselves > > **knowing** what > > they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or days] after having done > it).] > > > > Then communication in words/with words should be based on previous deeds > > if they are to represent some appropriate knowledge. And I don't know > here > > how this notion connects to the word's instantaneous multi-variateness. > > > > Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more than a hundred times > > like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and situated action'. He > > criticizes other economists for taking the numerous comings and goings as > > leading to the positing of the workers as accumulating more than they > need > > appropriating their due share of the surplus value becoming capitalists > > themselves. History has rendered a halt to the Socialist Bloc yet workers > > are in the streets for their occupation and bread. History might take a > > hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF such and such MOVEMENT but > > that's theory and not actuality. > > > > Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and leave but my thought > ensued. > > This is against my preparedness. I will follow your other excellent > > guidances. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Haydi > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05 > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > > 4 article for discussion > > > > Haydi, all: > > > > concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be the specialist in our > > community. I cannot see the sort of differences some discourses in our > > community make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism. > > > > Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of Hegel: "In its > > foundation, my dialectical method not only differs from Hegels but is > *its > > direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of complete works, Capital, p. 27 > > [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx, whereas other scholars > > exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the coming and going during an > > exchange process, and the unity/identity of use-value and > > exchange-value----which exist not because of the different perspectives > of > > buyer and seller but because of the unity of the exchange (act). This > > exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical; that same > > coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain the very existence of > > mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical relation) is a movement of > > coming-and-going, where coming and going do not exist independently, > where > > any boundary is itself an effect rather than the cause of its parts. > > > > Mead, too, describes emergence in this way: something belonging to two > > orders, its nature in the subsequent order unpredictable from the > > perspective of the first order. He writes that sociality is experience. > > "the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the > > new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the capacity for being > > several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the Present, *p. 49). The word, > > in dialogue, is several things at once (pace Bakhtin and Voloshinov, > > Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...) > > > > Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about the method of Spinoza: > > "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not confuse the matter: It is > > dialectical only because it rests on the versatility of being, on its > > expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of its concept. This > > method, then, is precisely the opposite of a dialectical method. At every > > point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is also opened. In the > case > > at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open: It wants a rule of > > movement, a definition of the actual articulation or, at least, of the > > possibility of articulation." That is what I see in the Marx I read; and > > that is in the Bakhtin I read. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been opened to the > > viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you but with very little > > understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't claim far greater > > comprehension of what is being said and explained. But the fact is I feel > > much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather call 'appealing' , > > 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your articles , try to > > understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce. I'm happy you're sharing > > your ideas with us again these days. At times they are very brief but > this > > piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more and more from you. I > > really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you so much! > > > > And I appreciate your replying to : > > > > And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The > > Philosophy of the Act* > > > > You well understand why I'm posing this question. Bakhtin's acceptance of > > dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy) or replacement of > > dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of the act'?? ACT of > > communication? Activity act? Action act? One could very easily equalize > > intercourse with communication. All depends on depths and essences of > what > > we intend to express as far as they refer to the actuality of the > affairs. > > Again you well know I've always seen word/dialogue/communication as > arising > > in the context/situation of work/labour/practical activity never > > dislocating these latter ones. But during all these years all those who > > opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now you base most of your > > writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing Grundrisse if you'd like to go > > through references to that work. Thanks! By the way I've read these last > > three articles (article,commentary,response) many times though the > response > > seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised with it. > > > > All the best wishes > > > > Haydi > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth > > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27 > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article for discussion > > > > Hi all, > > > > The first thing I note in the text David sent is the attribution of ideas > > to people. I think about this issue differently. Ideas, because abstract, > > are not of people. They are aspects of discourses of our community. We > > espouse such discourses and contribute to developing them, but they > always > > belong to us and never to me---recall the last paragraphs of *Thinking > and > > Speech: *the word is a reality for two but impossible for one. > > > > So what the article I authored presents is an ordering of phenomena in > > which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The description of the emergence > of > > *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of Thom's *catastrophe > theory*. > > This theory provides us with a way of classifying particular > > phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an endeavor as any other > > tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what the paragraph in > bullet > > (b) states, the published text is not about pure abstraction. It is > about a > > way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among other phenomena of > > neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a way in which authors, > > *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain requirements for phenomena to > be > > developmental rather than merely incremental. In this way, the article > > satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for the methodological > steps > > to be taken to be able to ascertain such phenomena. I cannot see any > > attempts being made in the text to assimilate adult forms of development > to > > infant and child development. Instead, it makes all of these forms > > empirical issues. How do you show that there is a change to a > qualitatively > > new form? This is the question the article answers. > > > > I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes something to me (my > > phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that David, who knows his > Vygotsky > > so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It was Vygotsky who defined > > consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the experience of > experiences > > just like experiences are simply experiences of objects" (Vygotsky, 1997 > > [vol 4], p. 71?72)----in Russian: "???????? ???? ??????????? ???????????, > > ????? ????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? > ?????????" > > (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same text, Vygotsky refers to > Marx > > and the doubling of experience in human labor. Marx (in the *German > > Ideology*) writes that his conception of history "does not explain praxis > > based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of ideas out of material > > praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness follows and arises from > > praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L. Suchman's work on the > > relation between [abstract] plans and situated action, and H. Garfinkel > on > > what it means to know an instruction, and my own work on the radical > > uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I show that even > scientists > > having done some procedure for 30 years still find themselves knowing > what > > they have done only [sometimes hours or days] after having done it). > > > > That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is the same that we find in > > Marx, when he writes that consciousness [Bewu?tsein] cannot ever be > > anything else than conscious [bewu?tes] being [Sein] (in *German > > Ideology*). > > In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being [Sein] from beings > > [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when he shows that > > consciousness is the presence of the distant object only attained in the > > future. I could continue the list with a series of French philosophers, > > developing these ideas further. And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of > *The > > Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy of the Act* [he, > > too] and *The > > Philosophy of the Present*). > > > > I would never claim that consciousness is individual---the word itself > > implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat. *sc?re*] together [Lat. > > *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to be individual, given > the > > long history of scholars showing us why it has to be otherwise: Marx, > > Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/> > > >* > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > Vygotsky > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > Vygotsky > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > exist > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > This > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > the > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > > more > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > c)? What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > > for > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > perizhivanie".? On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > consciousness > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > > all; > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > Theory, > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > appeal > > > to me: > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > > and > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > itself) > > it > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > back > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/ full > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > now > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/10749039. 2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > development. > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > turn-over > > > in > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > transition > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > > about > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > I > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > > those > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > > article relevant/appealing/ problematic... > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ______________________________ __________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article > > > > for? ? discussion > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > to > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > > right > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/ toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > > for > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > in > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Dec 16 13:17:34 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:17:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Michael, First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use of "leading activity". Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus seems to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do not necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By development I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful beyond a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not a quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new quality ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to project a cause-effect model). Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying the holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, but in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this can be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within the teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they may be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching institution. There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be maintained to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal examples if you want them). >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the self-perpetuating processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to the extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically assumed to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. Best, Huw On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Thanks, Andy, > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article for discussion > > attached, Bill > > a > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > hi Alfredo, > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a free > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or purchase. > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > Thanks, > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > >> > >> > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > article > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > Wolff-Michael > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > >> > >> > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > the > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > >> writings. > >> > >> > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > to > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > right > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > >> > >> > >> The whole issue is published here: > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > >> > >> > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > and > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > bringing > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have > for > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > in > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > >> > >> > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sat Dec 16 14:19:56 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:19:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. CUP: Amazon: Facebook author?s page: Martin From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Dec 16 15:00:45 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:00:45 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: We're just finishing up our ninth volume of Vygotsky's works in Korean (the fourth of his lessons in pedology). It's a volume that contains a "bridging" chapter on the Crisis at Thirteen written in 1933 and then a set of correspondence course lessons written in 1929, so although it follows the order of child development, it doesn't follow the order in which it was written at all. The jump cut is not quite as large as the one that Wolff-Michael is suggesting (his quote about the consciousness being the perezhivanie of perezhivanie harkens back to the first paper Vygotsky ever did, when he was not yet thirty and trying to break free of behaviorism without writing himself out of academia altogether--his quote about the water molecule is even more elemental: it goes back at least as far as John Stuart Mill and this is one reason why it has been translated iinto English as its exact opposite and yet nobody ever objects...). Nevertheless, there is a notable difference between the 1929 work and the 1933 work: the "neoformations", the "social situation of development", and the "lines of development", which are central to the 1933 Vygotsky, are entirely absent from the 1929 work. But I don't think the chapters are by two entirely different Vygotskies (and in fact I think that even Wolff-Michael's quote is by the same Vygotsky, but it dates from before Vygotsky decided that consciousness begins at birth). I think that the 1929 work lays the ground for the 1933 work in two important ways. First, Vygotsky is trying to create a "science of a natural whole" along the lines of history, and his first step in doing this is to distinguish pedology (where he will later develop the concept of neoformation, social situation of development and lines of development) from embryology on the one hand and psychotechnics (adult development) on the other. The embryo grows but doesn't learn; the adult learns but doesn't grow. The object of pedology is a complex unity of growing and learning (biological and cultural history) that Vygotsky calls development. Second, Vygotsky is trying to avoid a "vinaigrette". This is the deprecatory term used by Blonsky to mean a kind of emulsion of two essentially incompatible substances, viz. a biology of the child and a cultural history of the child, the kind of thing that Groos, Buhler, and Nazi psychologists (Kretschmer, Spranger, Kroh, Ach, and eventually Jung) were putting together. What Vygotsky says is that you can shake your biology and your cultural history together, but if you can't discover some internal link between growth on the one hand and learning on the other, they will just separate out again, like oil floating on vinegar. When Sasha says that Vygotsky failed to create a Marxist psychology and left that task (through Leontiev) to us, I see this as a kind of "inverted world". It seems to me that the truth is more like the very opposite: Vygotsky DID create a Marxist psychology, not within psychology but within pedology. But WE have created a vinaigrette, and one sign of this is that even on this revered list, we often find that discussions separate out into the oil of philosophy and the vinegar of pedagogy. Let me try to shake the two things together again, at least until we can get some salad lovers back into the discussion. First, take a look at the attached picture. It's a Bogdanov-Belsky (all our book covers are), and it's called "inspiration". The young woman's an adolescent, of course, and she's reading some kind of book with pictures and conversations. But she's not concentrating very hard, and we can easily imagine her mind straying to something even more concrete. The title of our new book, which combines the neoformation for age 13 with a central new psychological formation of adolescence, is ??? ?? ("Bunbyeolgwa Sarang", or "Dissociation and Love") Second, let me tell you about a problem we have been having with the vinegar of pedagogy and the oil of philosophy here in Korea. Anxious parents and whimsical professors like to treat curricula as hand-me-downs. We've had eight different national curriculum reforms since 1950 (far more than any other ASEAN country) and the net effect has always been to teach the NEXT zone of development--that is, to teach the adolescents to be adults, the thirteenagers to be teenagers, the primary schoolers to be thirteen, and the preschoolers to be primary schoolers. The net effect is very bad; it is like making beansprouts grow by pulling them up by the roots. Our teachers resist: they want to have the children play and teach the zone of actual development, and they make the argument on entirely non-phlosophical, pedagogical grounds. But if the good professors ever decided to read our books, they might easily try to justify it by--the zone of proximal development! (Fortunately, they are far too busy studying Thorndike and the Singaporean system to bother with us...). David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Michael, > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use of > "leading activity". > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus seems > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do not > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By development > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful beyond > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not a > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new quality > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to project > a cause-effect model). > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying the > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, but > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this can > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within the > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they may > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > institution. > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be maintained > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > examples if you want them). > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the self-perpetuating > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to the > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically assumed > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > Best, > Huw > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Thanks, Andy, > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article for discussion > > > > attached, Bill > > > > a > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > hi Alfredo, > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > free > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > purchase. > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > Thanks, > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > >> > > >> > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > >> > > >> > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > > the > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > >> writings. > > >> > > >> > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > > to > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > right > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > >> > > >> > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > >> > > >> > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > > and > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > for > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > > in > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > >> > > >> > > >> Alfredo > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: inspiration.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3391520 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171217/6bc06519/attachment-0001.jpg From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Dec 16 16:15:36 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:15:36 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used for undergraduates? The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so the sites of their research will be workplaces. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. > > CUP: > > > Amazon: > > > Facebook author?s page: > > > Martin > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sat Dec 16 17:15:15 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 01:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Helen, It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned only selected chapters from the first edition. But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) > On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > > Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used for undergraduates? > > The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> >> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) >> >> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. >> >> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. >> >> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. >> >> CUP: >> >> >> Amazon: >> >> >> Facebook author?s page: >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Psy611 Syllabus F11_Packer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 131904 bytes Desc: Psy611 Syllabus F11_Packer.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171217/469b00f5/attachment.pdf From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Dec 16 20:59:04 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 20:59:04 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Huw, As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order emerges in the water movement. There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are of that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the other sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes through a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows this, and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that come with continuous increases in some variable. About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no forces from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that you need to take the description into account as well in the system. Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level of the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the whole world. Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will tell you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. You will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel Henry (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, originary body are invisible. Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is convinced that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not Marxist. I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so far. LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear creations". IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, 2010, in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as untenable. We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right to go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Michael, > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use of > "leading activity". > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus seems > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do not > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By development > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful beyond > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not a > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new quality > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to project > a cause-effect model). > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying the > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, but > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this can > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within the > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they may > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > institution. > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be maintained > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > examples if you want them). > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the self-perpetuating > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to the > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically assumed > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > Best, > Huw > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Thanks, Andy, > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article for discussion > > > > attached, Bill > > > > a > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > hi Alfredo, > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > free > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > purchase. > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > Thanks, > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > >> > > >> > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > >> > > >> > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in > > the > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's > > >> writings. > > >> > > >> > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques > > to > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > right > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > >> > > >> > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > >> > > >> > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, > > and > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > for > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on > > in > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > >> > > >> > > >> Alfredo > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 01:29:47 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:29:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Martin, Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your perspective, QR avoids defining it? Thanks, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi Helen, > > It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and > an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, > and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. > I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which > I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus > from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned > only selected chapters from the first edition. > > But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) > > > > On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > > Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh > City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used > for undergraduates? > > > > The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so > the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > > > H > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > >> > >> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative > Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > >> > >> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative > research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s > subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative > research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of > subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings > have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which > they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are > formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus > on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work > ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study > of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of > interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > >> > >> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think > of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. > Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: > there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, > and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > >> > >> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study > the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms > with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his > interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this > life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us > to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human > being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which > people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better > understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and > important. > >> > >> CUP: > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > >> > >> Amazon: > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > >> > >> Facebook author?s page: > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 01:38:22 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:38:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks Michael, The examples of the water and conflict do not necessitate developmental change, I do not question that they entail a change in quality (organisation). I have no issue with Spinozist "substance". Best, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 04:59, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Huw, > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order emerges > in the water movement. > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are of > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the other > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes through > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows this, > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that come > with continuous increases in some variable. > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no forces > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level of > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > whole world. > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will tell > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. You > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel Henry > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > originary body are invisible. > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is convinced > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > Marxist. > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so far. > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear creations". > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, 2010, > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as untenable. > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right to > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use > of > > "leading activity". > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > seems > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do > not > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > development > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > beyond > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not > a > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > quality > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > project > > a cause-effect model). > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying > the > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, > but > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this > can > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within > the > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they > may > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > > institution. > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > maintained > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > > examples if you want them). > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > self-perpetuating > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to > the > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > assumed > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article for discussion > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > a > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > Michael's > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > > free > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > purchase. > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > notion > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > >> writings. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > > to > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > brings > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > access > > > right > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > > > for > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > > in > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 03:08:35 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:08:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello David, yes, that is how I see it. If we say social science is a science, it can never be in the sense in which natural science is a science. There is no exactness of the representation of social world in which social science researchers are dealing with a collage of colours and shapes that exhibit feelings and emotions of people including themselves. Philosophy is the father of social sciences, and what social sciences would need to learn is that philosophy leans on science not for its subject matter but for its spirit of experimentation - which Peirce called the laboratory mind, as opposed to the seminary mind. By the way, linguistics and semiotics are just as old as philosophy, so they and philosophy complement or supplement each other. James On 15 December 2017 at 01:26, David H Kirshner wrote: > James, > I see social science research in the way you are describing it as > assertion of a perspective. Data do not confirm the perspective, they are > encompassed and normalized by it. > My question is in the relation of social science to philosophy. > Is it that philosophy is inherently more dialogic? > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of James Ma > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 4:45 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article for discussion > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > Peircean semiosis applies. > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing > it. > > James > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Alfredo: > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > Vygotsky from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac > > Spielrein). Vygotsky was consistent: the child is not a short adult, > > and the adult is not a senile child, so child development cannot be > > seen as a kind of dress rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult > > development be seen as continuing child development by other means: > > there is a qualitative difference between the adolescent and the young > > adult that does not exist even between the schoolchild and the > adolescent. > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > This is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and > > also divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising > > to the concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me > > that necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more > > specific and more age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it > > much more general and consequently abstract. > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > > mean for it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat > > amongst the pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie > > of perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > > consciousness is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any > > consciousness at all; it also seems (to me) to imply that > > consciousness is essentially individual, the product of reflection > > upon reflections (and there is a similar argument being made, rather > > sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the current Educational Philosophical > and Theory... > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > > Theory, 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > appeal to me: > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > > differentiation and not replacement of one form by another. If > > consciousness is essentially perizhivanie turned back on itself (like > > language turned back on itself) it is easy to see how we develop--by > unraveling it. > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > > back on itself.... > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > wrote: > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > > > now open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > development. > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > > turn-over > > in > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > transition > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > > > writings > > about > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > > > I wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > > > whether > > those > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > > > the article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article > > > for discussion > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > article > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?". > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > > brief time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > > > Vygotskian notion that has appeared more than once in xmca but which > > > is not so common in > > the > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > Vygotsky's writings. > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > critiques to Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, > > > the article brings with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary > > > (which is open access > > right > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > > days, > > and > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > bringing > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > > have > > for > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > > on in current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 03:34:02 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:34:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1513327019526.90535@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <1513327019526.90535@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello Alfredo, Thanks for your message. I'm not a dualist to polarise things but rather one of those with the doctrine of dialectical materialism stubbornly ingrained in their minds from a very young age. You may find any school pupils from mainland China can talk about ideas of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong thought in length and apply them to academic studies and everyday learning situations. Dialectical materialism has long been a compulsory course at almost all university degree levels (regardless of disciplinary specialities), which leads us to hold out a somewhat ubiquitous conviction rather than a mere belief. I came to England when I was 34 after university and work in China. Over time I have found external (environmental) conditions to be much highlighted here in the England and in some cases perceived as imperatives in determining one's development regardless of his/her internal factors as if anything "from within" were set at the background or pushed to the side or even not there at all. This has become all the more apparent in the post-1992 universities, especially in those I call "how-you-are-clever" establishments, since the expansion of higher education. I have yet to figure out why such orientation tenaciously remains and how the law of the unity of contradictions may be brought to attention for a dialectical understanding of human development. Perhaps I might have to think to myself: Well, this is a different culture and all you need to follow is the idea "when in Rome, do as Romans do"! >From this, you can see the basis of my point made earlier and the stance I stand by: only through one's internal factors can external conditions become effectual or operative. I elaborate this in line with the general terminology of dialectical materialism: 1. Internal factors refer to an inherent basis for the existence and development of change in things. They are foundational to the existence of things and the intrinsic essence of a thing that distinguishes the thing from other things. They are the driving force for the movement of things, stipulating a basic trajectory of the development. 2. External factors are the external conditions for the existence and development of things. They function through internal factors to accelerate or delay the development of things but cannot change the fundamental nature of things and the directions of their development. 3. Things change alongside the interaction of these two conditions: internal and external factors. Internal factors are the primary reason and external factors the secondary reason. The workings of internal factors are already shown in the case of Leandro. When I wrote about the meaning of meanings as undergoing reconstitution or reconstruction within the individual, I used "within the individual" to mean something similar to Vygotsky's "intrapsychological" realm (e.g. he said thought undergoes reconfiguration before it is vocalised). I often use "within the individual" in a loose fashion, referring to one's inner world, including things innate, intrinsic or internalised from the outer world. What is internalised is something I like to call "outward-in" stimuli (e.g. social, cultural and historical experiences and encounters), as distinct from those from "within?"(e.g. unconscious thought, physiological impulse). There are two types of signs: inner and outer signs, corresponding to two domains of reality: internal and external reality. Signs permeate external reality (Peirce would say everything is a sign). As I mentioned before, we see something (a sign) as something (likeness of the sign). This likeness, as triggered by the material/sensible quality of that sign, is in fact an inner sign within ourselves. That is, the material/sensible quality of the sign causes to mind something about or beyond that sign, i.e. its likeness. This has relevance for understanding Vygotsky?s interpsychological and intrapsychological categories, but anyway that's my take on. James *_____________________________________* *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On 15 December 2017 at 08:36, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > HI James, > > interesting thoughts, particularly those on the role of social science; > and a different way to put things when it comes to "meaning", which is of > course welcome. But I wonder about your emphasis on the "within the > individual" when you describe signs and the meaning of meaning. How are, in > the framework that you set forth, the "social, cultural, and historical > contexts" that you mention come to be involved in the process of change or > reconstitution that you describe? Are they external input that appear only > and always reflected in signs "within the individual" (in which case the > account seems dualist, which on the other hand is not a reproach, would be > okey too if one finds that road useful)? Or is there other more materialist > aspect in your account that addresses context as something internal to this > process? I read Michael's piece working towards the latter, where Leandro's > changes are manifestation of a changing whole that is not reducible to > "within Leandro", and I think it is here that your respective accounts > disengage (or rather where they can potentially engage). > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth > Sent: 14 December 2017 23:54 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article for discussion > > Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not > come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, not > meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like > your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well > > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, > > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into > > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > relationship > > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > given > > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > people > > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying > but > > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion > > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you > > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is > > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, > > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > occurs > > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is > > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > knowing > > it. > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > Vygotsky > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > Vygotsky > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > exist > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > This > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > the > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > > more > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > > for > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > consciousness > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > > all; > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > Theory, > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > appeal > > > to me: > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > > and > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > itself) > > it > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > back > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > now > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > development. > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > turn-over > > > in > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > transition > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > > about > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > I > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > > those > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > to > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > > right > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > > for > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > in > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 03:39:47 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:39:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read it and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational understanding, with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as the experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of consciousness as the meaning of meanings. James *_____________________________________* *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not > come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, not > meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like > your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well > > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place, > > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into > > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > relationship > > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > given > > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > people > > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying > but > > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion > > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you > > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is > > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense, > > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > occurs > > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is > > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > knowing > > it. > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > Vygotsky > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > Vygotsky > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > exist > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > This > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > the > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and > > more > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean > > for > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > consciousness > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at > > all; > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > Theory, > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > appeal > > > to me: > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation > > and > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > itself) > > it > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course, > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > back > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > now > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > development. > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > turn-over > > > in > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > transition > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings > > > about > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. > I > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether > > > those > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the > > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > article > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > Wolff-Michael > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > brief > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > notion > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > to > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > brings > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access > > > right > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > have > > > for > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > in > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 04:49:42 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 04:49:42 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful to just stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in: Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning from "pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 30, 42?55 the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, means nothing?: lessons about the real life of language in education from ?pathological? cases in science classrooms (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf) In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics students' conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The title got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the proofs) And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013). Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma wrote: > Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read it > and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I > see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > > > Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational > understanding, > with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a > sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning > nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as the > experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of > consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > > > James > > > *_____________________________________* > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not > > come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, > not > > meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like > > your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > > looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > > inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is > > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me > well > > > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > > > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes > place, > > > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > > > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > > > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings > into > > > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > > relationship > > > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > > > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > > given > > > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > > > > > > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > > > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > > > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > > people > > > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying > > but > > > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the > notion > > > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how > you > > > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research > is > > > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > > > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this > sense, > > > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > > > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > > > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > > occurs > > > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > > > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > > > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > > > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he > is > > > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > > knowing > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > > Vygotsky > > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > > Vygotsky > > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not > a > > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > > exist > > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > > This > > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > > the > > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific > and > > > more > > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > and > > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > mean > > > for > > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > > consciousness > > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness > at > > > all; > > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is > a > > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > the > > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > > Theory, > > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > appeal > > > > to me: > > > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > differentiation > > > and > > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > essentially > > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > > itself) > > > it > > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > course, > > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > > back > > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > > now > > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > > development. > > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > already > > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > turn-over > > > > in > > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > > transition > > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > writings > > > > about > > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > challenges > > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > development. > > I > > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > whether > > > > those > > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > the > > > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > edu > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article > > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief > > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > notion > > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > > in > > > > the > > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > to > > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > brings > > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > access > > > > right > > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > > > > for > > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on > > > in > > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > Virus-free. > > > www.avast.com > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Dec 17 04:55:05 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:55:05 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> This leads to a performative contradiction, Michael. If you are saying that the word "meaning" is not used consistently in CHAT or across thee various discourses of linguistics, I heartily agree. But we can't "solve" it with a performative contradiction! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful to just > stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in: > > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning from > "pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 30, > 42?55 > > the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, means nothing?: lessons about the > real life of language in education from ?pathological? cases in science > classrooms (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf) > > In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics students' > conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The title > got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the proofs) > > And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013). > Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, The > Netherlands: Sense Publishers. > > Michael > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma wrote: > >> Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read it >> and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I >> see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: >> >> >> Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational >> understanding, >> with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a >> sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning >> nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as the >> experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of >> consciousness as the meaning of meanings. >> >> >> James >> >> >> *_____________________________________* >> >> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> >> On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not >>> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, >> not >>> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like >>> your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory >>> looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, >>> inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is >>> movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are >>> not the same but themselves in movement. Michael >>> >>> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> Applied Cognitive Science >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >>> University of Victoria >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >>> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >>> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me >> well >>>> and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in >>>> general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes >> place, >>>> i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the >>>> point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or >>>> "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings >> into >>>> focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such >>> relationship >>>> manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional >>>> (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to >>> given >>>> social, cultural and historical contexts). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's >>>> self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and >>>> foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with >>> people >>>> and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying >>> but >>>> also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the >> notion >>>> that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how >> you >>>> see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research >> is >>>> thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to >>>> induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this >> sense, >>>> social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and >>>> insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of >>>> Peircean semiosis applies. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality >>> occurs >>>> when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction >>>> within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. >>>> Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate >>>> neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he >> is >>>> reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of >>> knowing >>>> it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>>>> Alfredo: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. >>>>> >>>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided >>>> Vygotsky >>>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). >>>> Vygotsky >>>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not >> a >>>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress >>>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as >>>>> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative >>>>> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not >>> exist >>>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. >>>>> >>>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? >>>> This >>>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also >>>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to >>> the >>>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that >>>>> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific >> and >>>> more >>>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general >> and >>>>> consequently abstract. >>>>> >>>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it >> mean >>>> for >>>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the >>>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of >>>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that >>> consciousness >>>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness >> at >>>> all; >>>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially >>>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is >> a >>>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in >> the >>>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... >>>>> >>>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and >>> Theory, >>>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 >>>>> >>>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do >>> appeal >>>>> to me: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially >> differentiation >>>> and >>>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is >> essentially >>>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on >>> itself) >>>> it >>>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of >> course, >>>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it >>> back >>>>> on itself.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >>>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >>>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >>>>> >>>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >>>>> >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is >>> now >>>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 >>>>>> >>>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult >>>> development. >>>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was >> already >>>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental >>> turn-over >>>>> in >>>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and >>>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of >>>>> transition >>>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in >> writings >>>>> about >>>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or >> challenges >>>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child >> development. >>> I >>>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and >> whether >>>>> those >>>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present in >> the >>>>>> article relevant/appealing/problematic... >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> edu >>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 >>>> article >>>>>> for discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected >>>>> article >>>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by >>>> Wolff-Michael >>>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental >>> Change?". >>>>>> >>>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a >>> brief >>>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian >>> notion >>>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common >>> in >>>>> the >>>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in >>> Vygotsky's >>>>>> writings. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and >>> critiques >>>> to >>>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article >>> brings >>>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open >> access >>>>> right >>>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole issue is published here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming >>> days, >>>>> and >>>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy >>>>> bringing >>>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we >>> have >>>>> for >>>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live >>> on >>>> in >>>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>>> Virus-free. >>>> www.avast.com >>>> >>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>>> >> >> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> Virus-free. >> www.avast.com >> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 05:24:19 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:24:19 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi Andy, I don't know what you are trying to tell me--may be other words or expression would do. But already Ogden and Richards (1922) listed over 20 different uses of the term; and the *Handbook of Semiotics* (N?th, 1990) states: "The meaning of meaning is a semiotic labyrinth both on theoretical and on terminological grounds" (p.92). If there are so many different uses, then we are finding ourselves in the Tower of Babel even when we are all speaking English, let alone all the other languages. In our field specifically, the Marx we are getting to read is not at all the Marx that Russians and Germans read (those language versions seem to be matching each other quite well). I h Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > This leads to a performative contradiction, Michael. If you > are saying that the word "meaning" is not used consistently > in CHAT or across thee various discourses of linguistics, I > heartily agree. But we can't "solve" it with a performative > contradiction! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful to > just > > stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in: > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning from > > "pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, > 30, > > 42?55 > > > > the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, means nothing?: lessons > about the > > real life of language in education from ?pathological? cases in science > > classrooms (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf) > > > > In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics > students' > > conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The title > > got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the proofs) > > > > And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013). > > Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, The > > Netherlands: Sense Publishers. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > >> Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read > it > >> and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how > I > >> see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > >> > >> > >> Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational > >> understanding, > >> with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a > >> sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less > meaning > >> nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as > the > >> experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of > >> consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> *_____________________________________* > >> > >> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > >> * > >> > >> > >> On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did > not > >>> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, > >> not > >>> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, > like > >>> your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > >>> looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > >>> inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still > is > >>> movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts > are > >>> not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma > wrote: > >>> > >>>> David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me > >> well > >>>> and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > >>>> general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes > >> place, > >>>> i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > >>>> point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > >>>> "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings > >> into > >>>> focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > >>> relationship > >>>> manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > >>>> (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > >>> given > >>>> social, cultural and historical contexts). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > >>>> self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > >>>> foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > >>> people > >>>> and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are > studying > >>> but > >>>> also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the > >> notion > >>>> that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how > >> you > >>>> see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research > >> is > >>>> thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > >>>> induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this > >> sense, > >>>> social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > >>>> insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > >>>> Peircean semiosis applies. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > >>> occurs > >>>> when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > >>>> within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > >>>> Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > >>>> neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he > >> is > >>>> reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > >>> knowing > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Alfredo: > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not > >> a > >>>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > >>>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > >>>>> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > >>>>> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > >>> exist > >>>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > >>>> This > >>>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > >>>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > >>> the > >>>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > >>>>> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific > >> and > >>>> more > >>>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > >> and > >>>>> consequently abstract. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > >> mean > >>>> for > >>>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > >>>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > >>>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > >>> consciousness > >>>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness > >> at > >>>> all; > >>>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > >>>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is > >> a > >>>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > >> the > >>>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > >>>>> > >>>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > >>> Theory, > >>>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > >>>>> > >>>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > >>> appeal > >>>>> to me: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > >> differentiation > >>>> and > >>>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > >> essentially > >>>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > >>> itself) > >>>> it > >>>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > >> course, > >>>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > >>> back > >>>>> on itself.... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > >>>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > >>>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >>>>> > >>>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > >>> now > >>>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > >>>> development. > >>>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > >> already > >>>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > >>> turn-over > >>>>> in > >>>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > >>>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > >>>>> transition > >>>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > >> writings > >>>>> about > >>>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > >> challenges > >>>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > >> development. > >>> I > >>>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > >> whether > >>>>> those > >>>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present in > >> the > >>>>>> article relevant/appealing/problematic... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> >>> edu > >>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > >>>> article > >>>>>> for discussion > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > >>>>> article > >>>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > >>>> Wolff-Michael > >>>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > >>> Change?". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > >>> brief > >>>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > >>> notion > >>>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > >>> in > >>>>> the > >>>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > >>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>> writings. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > >>> critiques > >>>> to > >>>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > >>> brings > >>>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > >> access > >>>>> right > >>>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The whole issue is published here: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > >>> days, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > >>>>> bringing > >>>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > >>> have > >>>>> for > >>>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > >>> on > >>>> in > >>>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> Virus-free. > >>>> www.avast.com > >>>> >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >>>> > >> > >> >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> Virus-free. > >> www.avast.com > >> >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >> > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 05:24:57 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:24:57 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> Message-ID: ave done an analysis and hope the article will see the light of publication sometime soon. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, I don't know what you are trying to tell me--may be other words > or expression would do. But already Ogden and Richards (1922) listed over > 20 different uses of the term; and the *Handbook of Semiotics* (N?th, > 1990) states: "The meaning of meaning is a semiotic labyrinth both on > theoretical and on terminological grounds" (p.92). > If there are so many different uses, then we are finding ourselves in the > Tower of Babel even when we are all speaking English, let alone all the > other languages. In our field specifically, the Marx we are getting to read > is not at all the Marx that Russians and Germans read (those language > versions seem to be matching each other quite well). I h > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > * > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> This leads to a performative contradiction, Michael. If you >> are saying that the word "meaning" is not used consistently >> in CHAT or across thee various discourses of linguistics, I >> heartily agree. But we can't "solve" it with a performative >> contradiction! >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: >> > James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful to >> just >> > stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in: >> > >> > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning from >> > "pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, >> 30, >> > 42?55 >> > >> > the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, means nothing?: lessons >> about the >> > real life of language in education from ?pathological? cases in science >> > classrooms (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf) >> > >> > In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics >> students' >> > conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The title >> > got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the proofs) >> > >> > And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013). >> > Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, The >> > Netherlands: Sense Publishers. >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------------- >> > Applied Cognitive Science >> > MacLaurin Building A567 >> > University of Victoria >> > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >> > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >> > >> > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> > > ections-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics >> -of-mathematics/>* >> > >> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >> > >> >> Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've >> read it >> >> and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is >> how I >> >> see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: >> >> >> >> >> >> Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational >> >> understanding, >> >> with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a >> >> sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less >> meaning >> >> nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness >> as the >> >> experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of >> >> consciousness as the meaning of meanings. >> >> >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> >> >> *_____________________________________* >> >> >> >> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < >> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did >> not >> >>> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, >> >> not >> >>> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, >> like >> >>> your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity >> theory >> >>> looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, >> >>> inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still >> is >> >>> movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts >> are >> >>> not the same but themselves in movement. Michael >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> -------------------- >> >>> Applied Cognitive Science >> >>> MacLaurin Building A567 >> >>> University of Victoria >> >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 >> >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth >> >>> >> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics >> >>> > >>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- >> >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me >> >> well >> >>>> and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in >> >>>> general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes >> >> place, >> >>>> i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to >> the >> >>>> point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or >> >>>> "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings >> >> into >> >>>> focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such >> >>> relationship >> >>>> manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional >> >>>> (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to >> >>> given >> >>>> social, cultural and historical contexts). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's >> >>>> self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and >> >>>> foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with >> >>> people >> >>>> and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are >> studying >> >>> but >> >>>> also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the >> >> notion >> >>>> that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how >> >> you >> >>>> see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research >> >> is >> >>>> thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to >> >>>> induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this >> >> sense, >> >>>> social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and >> >>>> insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of >> >>>> Peircean semiosis applies. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality >> >>> occurs >> >>>> when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or >> reconstruction >> >>>> within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. >> >>>> Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate >> >>>> neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he >> >> is >> >>>> reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of >> >>> knowing >> >>>> it. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> James >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> Alfredo: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided >> >>>> Vygotsky >> >>>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). >> >>>> Vygotsky >> >>>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not >> >> a >> >>>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress >> >>>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen >> as >> >>>>> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative >> >>>>> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not >> >>> exist >> >>>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have >> tried? >> >>>> This >> >>>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also >> >>>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to >> >>> the >> >>>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that >> >>>>> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific >> >> and >> >>>> more >> >>>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general >> >> and >> >>>>> consequently abstract. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it >> >> mean >> >>>> for >> >>>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst >> the >> >>>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of >> >>>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that >> >>> consciousness >> >>>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness >> >> at >> >>>> all; >> >>>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially >> >>>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is >> >> a >> >>>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in >> >> the >> >>>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and >> >>> Theory, >> >>>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do >> >>> appeal >> >>>>> to me: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially >> >> differentiation >> >>>> and >> >>>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is >> >> essentially >> >>>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on >> >>> itself) >> >>>> it >> >>>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of >> >> course, >> >>>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it >> >>> back >> >>>>> on itself.... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> David Kellogg >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >> >>>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >> >>>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >> >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is >> >>> now >> >>>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. >> >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult >> >>>> development. >> >>>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was >> >> already >> >>>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental >> >>> turn-over >> >>>>> in >> >>>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and >> >>>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of >> >>>>> transition >> >>>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in >> >> writings >> >>>>> about >> >>>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or >> >> challenges >> >>>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child >> >> development. >> >>> I >> >>>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and >> >> whether >> >>>>> those >> >>>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present in >> >> the >> >>>>>> article relevant/appealing/problematic... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Alfredo >> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> > >>> edu >> >>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> >>>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 >> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 >> >>>> article >> >>>>>> for discussion >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected >> >>>>> article >> >>>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by >> >>>> Wolff-Michael >> >>>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental >> >>> Change?". >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a >> >>> brief >> >>>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian >> >>> notion >> >>>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common >> >>> in >> >>>>> the >> >>>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in >> >>> Vygotsky's >> >>>>>> writings. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and >> >>> critiques >> >>>> to >> >>>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article >> >>> brings >> >>>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open >> >> access >> >>>>> right >> >>>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The whole issue is published here: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming >> >>> days, >> >>>>> and >> >>>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy >> >>>>> bringing >> >>>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we >> >>> have >> >>>>> for >> >>>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live >> >>> on >> >>>> in >> >>>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Alfredo >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> >>>> Virus-free. >> >>>> www.avast.com >> >>>> > >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> >> Virus-free. >> >> www.avast.com >> >> > >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> >> > >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Dec 17 05:31:34 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:31:34 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> Message-ID: <700bd2be-2a6d-2679-8511-96f1b1c49998@mira.net> This has come up on xmca before. We have also had members of this list putting it that "concept" has no place in science, leading to more performative contradictions. In the past I have said on this list that Vygotsky uses the term "to mean" as a verb, that is, as an action, in particular, as an action mediated by the use of a word. I don't see what the problem is with this. As far as I can see Leontyev took is that the meaning of a word is something given in a dictionary and is therefore objective. If you take this road, of course, you end up tied in so many knots you can never find your way out. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 18/12/2017 12:24 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > ave done an analysis and hope the article will see the > light of publication sometime soon. Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > /* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth > > wrote: > > Hi Andy, I don't know what you are trying to tell > me--may be other words or expression would do. But > already Ogden and Richards (1922) listed over 20 > different uses of the term; and the /Handbook of > Semiotics/ (N?th, 1990) states: "The meaning of > meaning is a semiotic labyrinth both on theoretical > and on terminological grounds" (p.92). > If there are so many different uses, then we are > finding ourselves in the Tower of Babel even when we > are all speaking English, let alone all the other > languages. In our field specifically, the Marx we are > getting to read is not at all the Marx that Russians > and Germans read (those language versions seem to be > matching each other quite well). I h > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > New book: */The Mathematics of Mathematics > /* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > This leads to a performative contradiction, > Michael. If you > are saying that the word "meaning" is not used > consistently > in CHAT or across thee various discourses of > linguistics, I > heartily agree. But we can't "solve" it with a > performative > contradiction! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that > it might be useful to just > > stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this > point in: > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of > language: Learning from > > "pathological" cases in science classrooms. > Linguistics and Education, 30, > > 42?55 > > > > the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, > means nothing?: lessons about the > > real life of language in education from > ?pathological? cases in science > > classrooms > (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf > ) > > > > In it I analyze, among others, a classroom > episode where physics students' > > conversation consists in 10 articulation of the > word "penis". (The title > > got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps > even after the proofs) > > > > And I also deal with the problematic of the term > in Roth, W.-M. (2013). > > Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic > approach. Rotterdam, The > > Netherlands: Sense Publishers. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > >* > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma > > wrote: > > > >> Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out > your message; now I've read it > >> and your article too. You might still disagree > with me, but this is how I > >> see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > >> > >> > >> Experience as perceptual understanding precedes > meaning as rational > >> understanding, > >> with the latter not only bearing the heritage > of but also reaching a > >> sublimation of the former. Thus, there is > neither experience-less meaning > >> nor meaning-less experience, and hence the > defining of consciousness as the > >> experience of experiences is to go hand in hand > with the defining of > >> consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> *_____________________________________* > >> > >> *James Ma* > *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > >> > * > >> > >> > >> On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my > message or my message did not > >>> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is > experience of experience, > >> not > >>> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" > are not logical ones, like > >>> your talk about the mental suggests. They > exist because activity theory > >>> looks at living phenomena, which, because in > time and producing time, > >>> inherently contain differences... The smallest > unit of movement still is > >>> movement, and within it, there is change, so > that the different parts are > >>> not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> > > >>> > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> David's point that consciousness is the > meaning of meaning suits me > >> well > >>>> and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to > social science research in > >>>> general as well as neoformation in > materialist dialectics. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I see consciousness as a nexus through which > mental activity takes > >> place, > >>>> i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened > (animated) or more to the > >>>> point "semiotised" in that it is > predominantly made up of signs (or > >>>> "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their > likeness. This brings > >> into > >>>> focus the relationship between signs and > their likeness - such > >>> relationship > >>>> manifests itself as the meaning of meaning > that is ever intentional > >>>> (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) > and situational (tied to > >>> given > >>>> social, cultural and historical contexts). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Premised on this, in social science research, > the researcher's > >>>> self-function as instrument for research is > arguably to be first and > >>>> foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics > is thus concerned with > >>> people > >>>> and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not > only those you are studying > >>> but > >>>> also those who are conducting the study; > "knowledge" contains the > >> notion > >>>> that by doing research you make a claim to > knowledge in terms of how > >> you > >>>> see what you see and why. The very purpose of > social science research > >> is > >>>> thus not to offer a definitive answer to a > big question but rather to > >>>> induct other people into your way of thinking > and knowing. In this > >> sense, > >>>> social science research is by nature > subjective, self-evident and > >>>> insusceptible of final conclusions - to which > the *ad infinitum* of > >>>> Peircean semiosis applies. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regarding neoformation, the transformation of > quantity into quality > >>> occurs > >>>> when the meaning of meaning undergoes > reconstitution or reconstruction > >>>> within the individual, as in the case of > Leandro in Roth's article. > >>>> Importantly, internal contradictions within > an individual precipitate > >>>> neoformation as a qualitative change, that > is, instead of knowing, he > >> is > >>>> reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning > of meaning instead of > >>> knowing > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > > > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Alfredo: > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we > can twist together. > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the > major issues that divided > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time > (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> was consistent: the child is not a short > adult, and the adult is not > >> a > >>>>> senile child, so child development cannot be > seen as a kind of dress > >>>>> rehearsal for adult development, nor can > adult development be seen as > >>>>> continuing child development by other means: > there is a qualitative > >>>>> difference between the adolescent and the > young adult that does not > >>> exist > >>>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? > Should he even have tried? > >>>> This > >>>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from > Wolff-Michael, and also > >>>>> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha > believes that without rising to > >>> the > >>>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist > method at all. To me that > >>>>> necessarily means making the concept of > neoformation more specific > >> and > >>>> more > >>>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to > make it much more general > >> and > >>>>> consequently abstract. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical > term) and what would it > >> mean > >>>> for > >>>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael > has set a cat amongst the > >>>>> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as > "perizhivanie of > >>>>> perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems > to suggest that > >>> consciousness > >>>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot > have any consciousness > >> at > >>>> all; > >>>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that > consciousness is essentially > >>>>> individual, the product of reflection upon > reflections (and there is > >> a > >>>>> similar argument being made, rather > sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > >> the > >>>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > >>>>> > >>>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, > Educational Philosophy and > >>> Theory, > >>>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: > 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > >>>>> > >>>>> And yet there are two things about > Wolff-Michael's formula that do > >>> appeal > >>>>> to me: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is > essentially > >> differentiation > >>>> and > >>>>> not replacement of one form by another. If > consciousness is > >> essentially > >>>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like > language turned back on > >>> itself) > >>>> it > >>>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the > "meaning of meaning". Of > >> course, > >>>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is > what I get when I turn it > >>> back > >>>>> on itself.... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and > Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > >>>>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A > Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > >>>>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >>>>> > >>>>> Free e-print available (for a short time > only) at > >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo > Jornet Gil < > >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Just a reminder that the article for > discussion on neoformation is > >>> now > >>>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > >>>>>> > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There recently were questions in this list > concerning adult > >>>> development. > >>>>>> There was then no mention to this article, > which I think was > >> already > >>>>>> published, but it turns out that it > discusses a developmental > >>> turn-over > >>>>> in > >>>>>> the professional and everyday life of an > adult teacher, using and > >>>>>> discussing the concept of neoformation and > the associated law of > >>>>> transition > >>>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky > introduced the concept in > >> writings > >>>>> about > >>>>>> child development, and so I assume there > may be issues or > >> challenges > >>>>>> specific to the extension of these notions > beyond child > >> development. > >>> I > >>>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside > it think, how and > >> whether > >>>>> those > >>>>>> interested in adult development find the > contributions present in > >> the > >>>>>> article relevant/appealing/problematic... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> >>> edu > >>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > >>>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and > developmental change: Issue 4 > >>>> article > >>>>>> for discussion > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the year is close to its end and we have > yet to discuss a selected > >>>>> article > >>>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an > article written by > >>>> Wolff-Michael > >>>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach > to Developmental > >>> Change?". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The article, which is attached and will be > made open access for a > >>> brief > >>>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of > "neoformation", a Vygotskian > >>> notion > >>>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca > but which is not so common > >>> in > >>>>> the > >>>>>> literature, despite having quite a > methodological import in > >>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>> writings. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I believe the topic is timely given > parallel discussions and > >>> critiques > >>>> to > >>>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. > Moreover, the article > >>> brings > >>>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg > commentary (which is open > >> access > >>>>> right > >>>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 > for 1 treat! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The whole issue is published here: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the > conversation in the coming > >>> days, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the > paper and not to be shy > >>>>> bringing > >>>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is > a unique opportunity we > >>> have > >>>>> for > >>>>>> digging into the different ways in which > Vygotsky's legacy may live > >>> on > >>>> in > >>>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > research/literature. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> Virus-free. > >>>> www.avast.com > >>>> > > >>>> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >>>> > >> > >> > > >> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> Virus-free. > >> www.avast.com > >> > > >> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >> > > > > > From smago@uga.edu Sun Dec 17 05:36:26 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:36:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> <555575f8-0b22-17d5-17de-bcbc77d2fc3e@mira.net> Message-ID: In case anyone's interested, I took a stab at "the meaning of meaning" awhile back. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from?: Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71, 133-169. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/RER/RER2001.pdf -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 8:24 AM To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Hi Andy, I don't know what you are trying to tell me--may be other words or expression would do. But already Ogden and Richards (1922) listed over 20 different uses of the term; and the *Handbook of Semiotics* (N?th, 1990) states: "The meaning of meaning is a semiotic labyrinth both on theoretical and on terminological grounds" (p.92). If there are so many different uses, then we are finding ourselves in the Tower of Babel even when we are all speaking English, let alone all the other languages. In our field specifically, the Marx we are getting to read is not at all the Marx that Russians and Germans read (those language versions seem to be matching each other quite well). I h Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > This leads to a performative contradiction, Michael. If you are saying > that the word "meaning" is not used consistently in CHAT or across > thee various discourses of linguistics, I heartily agree. But we can't > "solve" it with a performative contradiction! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote: > > James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful > > to > just > > stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in: > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning > > from "pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and > > Education, > 30, > > 42?55 > > > > the original title was: ?Meaning, in essence, means nothing?: > > lessons > about the > > real life of language in education from ?pathological? cases in > > science classrooms > > (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf) > > > > In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics > students' > > conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The > > title got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the > > proofs) > > > > And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013). > > Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, > > The > > Netherlands: Sense Publishers. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > >> Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've > >> read > it > >> and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is > >> how > I > >> see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > >> > >> > >> Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational > >> understanding, with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but > >> also reaching a sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither > >> experience-less > meaning > >> nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of > >> consciousness as > the > >> experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining > >> of consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> *_____________________________________* > >> > >> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > >> * > >> > >> > >> On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message > >>> did > not > >>> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of > >>> experience, > >> not > >>> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical > >>> ones, > like > >>> your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity > >>> theory looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and > >>> producing time, inherently contain differences... The smallest > >>> unit of movement still > is > >>> movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different > >>> parts > are > >>> not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> -------------------- > >>> Applied Cognitive Science > >>> MacLaurin Building A567 > >>> University of Victoria > >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > >>> > >>> > >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > >>> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma > wrote: > >>> > >>>> David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits > >>>> me > >> well > >>>> and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science > >>>> research in general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity > >>>> takes > >> place, > >>>> i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more > >>>> to the point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of > >>>> signs (or "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. > >>>> This brings > >> into > >>>> focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > >>> relationship > >>>> manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever > >>>> intentional (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and > >>>> situational (tied to > >>> given > >>>> social, cultural and historical contexts). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > >>>> self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first > >>>> and foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus > >>>> concerned with > >>> people > >>>> and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are > studying > >>> but > >>>> also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the > >> notion > >>>> that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of > >>>> how > >> you > >>>> see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science > >>>> research > >> is > >>>> thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but > >>>> rather to induct other people into your way of thinking and > >>>> knowing. In this > >> sense, > >>>> social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > >>>> insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* > >>>> of Peircean semiosis applies. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into > >>>> quality > >>> occurs > >>>> when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or > >>>> reconstruction within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > >>>> Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual > >>>> precipitate neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, > >>>> instead of knowing, he > >> is > >>>> reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead > >>>> of > >>> knowing > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > >>>> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Alfredo: > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that > >>>>> divided > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is > >>>>> not > >> a > >>>>> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of > >>>>> dress rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development > >>>>> be seen as continuing child development by other means: there is > >>>>> a qualitative difference between the adolescent and the young > >>>>> adult that does not > >>> exist > >>>>> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > >>>> This > >>>>> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and > >>>>> also divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without > >>>>> rising to > >>> the > >>>>> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me > >>>>> that necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more > >>>>> specific > >> and > >>>> more > >>>>> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more > >>>>> general > >> and > >>>>> consequently abstract. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would > >>>>> it > >> mean > >>>> for > >>>>> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat > >>>>> amongst the pigeons by defining consciousness itself as > >>>>> "perizhivanie of perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to > >>>>> suggest that > >>> consciousness > >>>>> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any > >>>>> consciousness > >> at > >>>> all; > >>>>> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > >>>>> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and > >>>>> there is > >> a > >>>>> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley > >>>>> in > >> the > >>>>> current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > >>>>> > >>>>> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy > >>>>> and > >>> Theory, > >>>>> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > >>>>> > >>>>> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that > >>>>> do > >>> appeal > >>>>> to me: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > >> differentiation > >>>> and > >>>>> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > >> essentially > >>>>> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > >>> itself) > >>>> it > >>>>> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > >> course, > >>>>> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I > >>>>> turn it > >>> back > >>>>> on itself.... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) > >>>>> 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on > >>>>> ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >>>>> > >>>>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation > >>>>>> is > >>> now > >>>>>> open access at the MCA T&F pages. > >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.11793 > >>>>>> 27 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > >>>> development. > >>>>>> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > >> already > >>>>>> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > >>> turn-over > >>>>> in > >>>>>> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using > >>>>>> and discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated > >>>>>> law of > >>>>> transition > >>>>>> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > >> writings > >>>>> about > >>>>>> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > >> challenges > >>>>>> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > >> development. > >>> I > >>>>>> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > >> whether > >>>>> those > >>>>>> interested in adult development find the contributions present > >>>>>> in > >> the > >>>>>> article relevant/appealing/problematic... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> >>> edu > >>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>>>> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > >>>>>> 4 > >>>> article > >>>>>> for discussion > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steemed xmca'ers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > >>>>>> selected > >>>>> article > >>>>>> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > >>>> Wolff-Michael > >>>>>> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > >>> Change?". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for > >>>>>> a > >>> brief > >>>>>> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > >>>>>> Vygotskian > >>> notion > >>>>>> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > >>>>>> common > >>> in > >>>>> the > >>>>>> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > >>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>> writings. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > >>> critiques > >>>> to > >>>>>> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > >>>>>> article > >>> brings > >>>>>> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > >> access > >>>>> right > >>>>>> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The whole issue is published here: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > >>>>>> coming > >>> days, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > >>>>>> shy > >>>>> bringing > >>>>>> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity > >>>>>> we > >>> have > >>>>> for > >>>>>> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > >>>>>> live > >>> on > >>>> in > >>>>>> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> Virus-free. > >>>> www.avast.com > >>>> >>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >>>> > >> > >> >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> Virus-free. > >> www.avast.com > >> >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >> > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 05:36:51 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:36:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: James, Possibly you are conflating a process of reflection with that of a (hypothetical) temporal perceptual-rational difference, i.e. that your meaning derived from experience is a reflected-upon experience. Also, with respect to the equating of "experience of experience" with consciousness, this seems to me to be more appropriately related to self-consciousness -- I trust that's helpful. Your 3 points re DM assumptions seem reasonable to me, and I am equally bemused about the university cultures you allude to here (and other emails), although I would say they are not so simple, especially if one is looking for theoretical rigour or merely discussion. Best, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 11:39, James Ma wrote: > Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read it > and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I > see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > > > Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational > understanding, > with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a > sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning > nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as the > experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of > consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > > > James > > > *_____________________________________* > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not > > come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, > not > > meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like > > your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > > looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > > inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is > > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me > well > > > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > > > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes > place, > > > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the > > > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > > > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings > into > > > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > > relationship > > > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > > > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > > given > > > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > > > > > > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > > > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > > > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > > people > > > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying > > but > > > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the > notion > > > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how > you > > > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research > is > > > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > > > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this > sense, > > > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > > > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > > > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > > occurs > > > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction > > > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > > > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > > > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he > is > > > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > > knowing > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > > Vygotsky > > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > > Vygotsky > > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not > a > > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress > > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as > > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > > exist > > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? > > > This > > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also > > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to > > the > > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific > and > > > more > > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > and > > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > mean > > > for > > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the > > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > > consciousness > > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness > at > > > all; > > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is > a > > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > the > > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > > Theory, > > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > appeal > > > > to me: > > > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > differentiation > > > and > > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > essentially > > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > > itself) > > > it > > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > course, > > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it > > back > > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is > > now > > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > > development. > > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > already > > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > turn-over > > > > in > > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > > transition > > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > writings > > > > about > > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > challenges > > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > development. > > I > > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > whether > > > > those > > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > the > > > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > edu > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article > > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief > > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > notion > > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > > in > > > > the > > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > to > > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > brings > > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > access > > > > right > > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > > > > for > > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on > > > in > > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > Virus-free. > > > www.avast.com > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 07:26:05 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:26:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513159558968.79282@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello Huw, Michael and Peter, many thanks for your messages. If meaning is nothing, then all the systems of signification are nothing - culture, nothing; history, nothing...... I'm much influenced by Saussure and Halliday because of my background (e.g. for Halliday, meaning is doing). My interest has long been language, meaning and consciousness - these three words can be further distilled into one single word "semiotic" - which I carry with me wherever I go ??? James PS Readings Peter and Michael suggested sound really interesting and I'm going to read. Thank you. On 17 December 2017 at 13:36, Huw Lloyd wrote: > James, > > Possibly you are conflating a process of reflection with that of a > (hypothetical) temporal perceptual-rational difference, i.e. that your > meaning derived from experience is a reflected-upon experience. Also, with > respect to the equating of "experience of experience" with consciousness, > this seems to me to be more appropriately related to self-consciousness -- > I trust that's helpful. > > Your 3 points re DM assumptions seem reasonable to me, and I am equally > bemused about the university cultures you allude to here (and other > emails), although I would say they are not so simple, especially if one is > looking for theoretical rigour or merely discussion. > > Best, > Huw > > On 17 December 2017 at 11:39, James Ma wrote: > > > Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read > it > > and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I > > see it through the lens of materialist dialectics: > > > > > > Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational > > understanding, > > with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a > > sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning > > nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as > the > > experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of > > consciousness as the meaning of meanings. > > > > > > James > > > > > > *_____________________________________* > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > * > > > > > > On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did > not > > > come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, > > not > > > meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, > like > > > your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory > > > looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time, > > > inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still > is > > > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts > are > > > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma > wrote: > > > > > > > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me > > well > > > > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in > > > > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes > > place, > > > > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to > the > > > > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or > > > > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings > > into > > > > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such > > > relationship > > > > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional > > > > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to > > > given > > > > social, cultural and historical contexts). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's > > > > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and > > > > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with > > > people > > > > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are > studying > > > but > > > > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the > > notion > > > > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how > > you > > > > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research > > is > > > > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to > > > > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this > > sense, > > > > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and > > > > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of > > > > Peircean semiosis applies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality > > > occurs > > > > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or > reconstruction > > > > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article. > > > > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate > > > > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he > > is > > > > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of > > > knowing > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alfredo: > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together. > > > > > > > > > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided > > > > Vygotsky > > > > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). > > > > Vygotsky > > > > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is > not > > a > > > > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of > dress > > > > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen > as > > > > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative > > > > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not > > > exist > > > > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent. > > > > > > > > > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have > tried? > > > > This > > > > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and > also > > > > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising > to > > > the > > > > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that > > > > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific > > and > > > > more > > > > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general > > and > > > > > consequently abstract. > > > > > > > > > > c) What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it > > mean > > > > for > > > > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst > the > > > > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of > > > > > perizhivanie". On the one hand, this seems to suggest that > > > consciousness > > > > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness > > at > > > > all; > > > > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially > > > > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there > is > > a > > > > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in > > the > > > > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory... > > > > > > > > > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and > > > Theory, > > > > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341 > > > > > > > > > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do > > > appeal > > > > > to me: > > > > > > > > > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially > > differentiation > > > > and > > > > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is > > essentially > > > > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on > > > itself) > > > > it > > > > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of > > course, > > > > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn > it > > > back > > > > > on itself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation > is > > > now > > > > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages. > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039. > 2016.1179327 > > > > > > > > > > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult > > > > development. > > > > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was > > already > > > > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental > > > turn-over > > > > > in > > > > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and > > > > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of > > > > > transition > > > > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in > > writings > > > > > about > > > > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or > > challenges > > > > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child > > development. > > > I > > > > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and > > whether > > > > > those > > > > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in > > the > > > > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic... > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > edu > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33 > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > > article > > > > > > for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > selected > > > > > article > > > > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > Change?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > > brief > > > > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > notion > > > > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > common > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > writings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > critiques > > > > to > > > > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > brings > > > > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > access > > > > > right > > > > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > > days, > > > > > and > > > > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > > bringing > > > > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity > we > > > have > > > > > for > > > > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > live > > > on > > > > in > > > > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > Virus-free. > > > > www.avast.com > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 13:15:42 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:15:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Hello Martin, I agree with you entirely - social science is the science of interpretation centring around the hermeneutic phenomenology of being human - which chimes with post-positivism. James On 16 December 2017 at 22:19, Martin John Packer wrote: > Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published > an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. > It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative > research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s > subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative > research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of > subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings > have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which > they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are > formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus > on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work > ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study > of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of > interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution > (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and > Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of > Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are > treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his > Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the > research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant > joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the > men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork > focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews > illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a > way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the > ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of > being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research > to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves > into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical > freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this > kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. > > CUP: > science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > Amazon: > qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > Facebook author?s page: > Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > Martin > > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 13:52:27 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 06:52:27 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves on a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved aggressively (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's remark about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't believe in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules and for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. Wolff-Michael interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use Vygotsky's words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Huw, > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order emerges > in the water movement. > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are of > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the other > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes through > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows this, > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that come > with continuous increases in some variable. > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no forces > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level of > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > whole world. > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will tell > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. You > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel Henry > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > originary body are invisible. > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is convinced > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > Marxist. > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so far. > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear creations". > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, 2010, > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as untenable. > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right to > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use > of > > "leading activity". > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > seems > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do > not > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > development > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > beyond > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not > a > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > quality > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > project > > a cause-effect model). > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying > the > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, > but > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this > can > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within > the > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they > may > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > > institution. > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > maintained > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > > examples if you want them). > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > self-perpetuating > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to > the > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > assumed > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > article for discussion > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > a > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > Michael's > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > > free > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > purchase. > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > article > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > Wolff-Michael > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > Change?". > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > brief > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > notion > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > in > > > the > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > Vygotsky's > > > >> writings. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > critiques > > > to > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > brings > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > access > > > right > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > days, > > > and > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > bringing > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > have > > > for > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > on > > > in > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Dec 17 17:12:16 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 01:12:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Huw, In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers. The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation. I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? Martin > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > Thanks, > Huw > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Hi Helen, >> >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned >> only selected chapters from the first edition. >> >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) >> >> >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >>> >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used >> for undergraduates? >>> >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. >>> >>> H >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: >>>> >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) >>>> >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. >>>> >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. >>>> >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and >> important. >>>> >>>> CUP: >>>> > science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> >>>> >>>> Amazon: >>>> > qs&keywords=9781108417129> >>>> >>>> Facebook author?s page: >>>> > Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Dec 17 17:12:55 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 01:12:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <9FF0A8D3-EE1B-4685-B728-5E58E458A969@uniandes.edu.co> Hello James. Well, it isn?t. But it ought to be! :) Martin > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:15 PM, James Ma wrote: > > Hello Martin, I agree with you entirely - social science is the science of > interpretation centring around the hermeneutic phenomenology of being human > - which chimes with post-positivism. James > > On 16 December 2017 at 22:19, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published >> an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. >> It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) >> >> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. >> >> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution >> (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and >> Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of >> Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are >> treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his >> Inquiry into Modes of Existence. >> >> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the >> research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant >> joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the >> men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork >> focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews >> illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a >> way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the >> ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of >> being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research >> to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves >> into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical >> freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this >> kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. >> >> CUP: >> > science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> >> >> Amazon: >> > qs&keywords=9781108417129> >> >> Facebook author?s page: >> > Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 17:39:02 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:39:02 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Martin, the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are distinct from observations in ethnographic research. Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the book: Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: Routledge. Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize research. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education research: Why criteria for research generalization should include population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College Record, 116(5), 1?28 Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" (qualitative?!). Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi Huw, > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not > one uses numbers. > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always > involves theory and interpretation. > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > Martin > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > Thanks, > > Huw > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Helen, > >> > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - > and > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > fieldwork, > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > class. > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > which > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > >> > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi > Minh > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used > >> for undergraduates? > >>> > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions > so > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > >>> > >>> H > >>> > >>> Helena Worthen > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > Qualitative > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > >>>> > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > people?s > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > of > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > beings > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > which > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human > are > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > focus > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > work > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > study > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter > of > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > >>>> > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > think > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > theory, > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > >>>> > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > terms > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > helps us > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > human > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting > and > >> important. > >>>> > >>>> CUP: > >>>> >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > >>>> > >>>> Amazon: > >>>> >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > >>>> > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > >>>> >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > From tuimviotto@gmail.com Sun Dec 17 20:02:12 2017 From: tuimviotto@gmail.com (Tuim Viotto) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:02:12 -0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: DEARS FRIENDS FROM XMCA, I WAS THINKING ABOUT DIALECTIC HISTORICAL MATERIALISM METHOD FROM MARX AND ENGELS; METHOD WHICH WAS ASSUMED BY VYGOTSKY AND HIS FRIENDS FROM HIST CULTURAL THEORY (LEONTIEV, LURIA, ELKONIN AND OTHERS) IN RUSSIA AND I REALIZED THIS METHOD OF RESEARCH WORKS WITH QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATAS IN UNIT, I MEAN, DO NOT SEPARATE IT...IN FACT INBODIED IT, THAT MEANS, IF WE WORK WITH HIST DIALECTIC MATERIALISM METHOD, AS VYGOTSKY DID, WE DONT NEED TO SEPARATE QUANTI OR QUALI, BECAUSE IT IS UNDERSTAND AS UNIT BY THE METHOD ITSELF. WOULD BE WRONG THIS IDEAS? JUST TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME THEORECTICAL IDEAS ABOUT DIALECTICAL RESEARCH METHODS!!! BEST I.A. TUIM VIOTTO FILHO UNESP UNIVERSITY PP/SP/BRAZIL Em 17 de dez de 2017 23:41, "Wolff-Michael Roth" < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> escreveu: > Hi Martin, > the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative > researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of > research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of > statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are > distinct from observations in ethnographic research. > > Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and > mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. > scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the > distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the > book: > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational > research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: > Routledge. > > Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the > first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize > research. > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education > research: Why criteria for research generalization should include > population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College > Record, 116(5), 1?28 > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into > qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. > > You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" > (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" > (qualitative?!). > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > Hi Huw, > > > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not > > one uses numbers. > > > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold > > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one > seeks a > > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is > > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations > are > > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: > > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. > And > > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always > > involves theory and interpretation. > > > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. > But > > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something > > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > > > Martin > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Helen, > > >> > > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - > > and > > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > > fieldwork, > > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > > class. > > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > > which > > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the > syllabus > > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I > assigned > > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > > >> > > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! > :) > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi > > Minh > > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be > used > > >> for undergraduates? > > >>> > > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions > > so > > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > >>> > > >>> H > > >>> > > >>> Helena Worthen > > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > > Qualitative > > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > >>>> > > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of > qualitative > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > people?s > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > qualitative > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > > of > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > beings > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > which > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > human > > are > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > focus > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > > work > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > study > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > matter > > of > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > >>>> > > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > > think > > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter > 1. > > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several > chapters: > > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > > theory, > > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > >>>> > > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case > study > > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > > terms > > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while > his > > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with > this > > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > > helps us > > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > > human > > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in > which > > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can > better > > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both > exciting > > and > > >> important. > > >>>> > > >>>> CUP: > > >>>> > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > >>>> > > >>>> Amazon: > > >>>> > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > >>>> > > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > > >>>> > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > >>>> > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Sun Dec 17 23:57:03 2017 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:57:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Hi Martin, does William Stephenson's Q Methodology feature in your discussion? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 18 December 2017 01:12 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed Hi Huw, In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers. The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation. I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? Martin > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > Thanks, > Huw > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Hi Helen, >> >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned >> only selected chapters from the first edition. >> >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) >> >> >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >>> >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used >> for undergraduates? >>> >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. >>> >>> H >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: >>>> >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) >>>> >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. >>>> >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. >>>> >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and >> important. >>>> >>>> CUP: >>>> > science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> >>>> >>>> Amazon: >>>> > qs&keywords=9781108417129> >>>> >>>> Facebook author?s page: >>>> > Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 01:47:23 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:47:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Martin. My view on this is that without a clear understanding of systemic quality, all of these practices: "qualitative", "quantitative" and "mixed-methods" miss the point. It seems to me a bizarre situation that "qualitative" researchers define themselves negatively, i.e. as not quantitative. Because the "quantitative" that they are defining themselves against is a reduced quantitativeness (a "two term" quantitativeness). Meanwhile the "qualitative" method is also reduced for its lack of grasping quality-as-system, it is reduced by its lack of grasping the systemic relations between action and text, by narrowing its range of attention to text and calling this its whole world, which also has repercussions for academic viability, by perpetuating a playing with text that never tests itself (a mode that fits the academic teaching model focused upon superficial notation and description). For developing learners of a field, reductionist understandings are a natural, inevitable consequence. These are best served by engagement with practitioners who see beyond this. Yet here we with have swathes of academic practitioners who do not seem to grasp this. They are all living in flat land, and that would be my first interpretation of why Vygotsky both rejects "scientific psychology" and "interpretative psychology". Best, Huw On 18 December 2017 at 01:39, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative > researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of > research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of > statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are > distinct from observations in ethnographic research. > > Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and > mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. > scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the > distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the > book: > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational > research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: > Routledge. > > Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the > first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize > research. > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education > research: Why criteria for research generalization should include > population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College > Record, 116(5), 1?28 > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into > qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. > > You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" > (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" > (qualitative?!). > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > Hi Huw, > > > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not > > one uses numbers. > > > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold > > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one > seeks a > > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is > > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations > are > > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: > > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. > And > > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always > > involves theory and interpretation. > > > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. > But > > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something > > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > > > Martin > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Helen, > > >> > > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - > > and > > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > > fieldwork, > > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > > class. > > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > > which > > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the > syllabus > > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I > assigned > > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > > >> > > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! > :) > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi > > Minh > > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be > used > > >> for undergraduates? > > >>> > > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions > > so > > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > >>> > > >>> H > > >>> > > >>> Helena Worthen > > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > > Qualitative > > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > >>>> > > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of > qualitative > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > people?s > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > qualitative > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > > of > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > beings > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > which > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > human > > are > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > focus > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > > work > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > study > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > matter > > of > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > >>>> > > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > > think > > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter > 1. > > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several > chapters: > > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > > theory, > > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > >>>> > > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case > study > > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > > terms > > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while > his > > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with > this > > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > > helps us > > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > > human > > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in > which > > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can > better > > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both > exciting > > and > > >> important. > > >>>> > > >>>> CUP: > > >>>> > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > >>>> > > >>>> Amazon: > > >>>> > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > >>>> > > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > > >>>> > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > >>>> > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 02:04:00 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please correct me if I am misrepresenting him: Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. In this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they achieve what is claimed. Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant to his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other words, his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is to further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a v. strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which is basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant to the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not that something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it has yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) does not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may argue entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). I hope this helps! Best, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves on > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved aggressively > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's remark > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't believe > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules and > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. Wolff-Michael > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use Vygotsky's > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Huw, > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order emerges > > in the water movement. > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are of > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the other > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes through > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows this, > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that come > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no forces > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level of > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > whole world. > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will tell > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. You > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel Henry > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > originary body are invisible. > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is convinced > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > Marxist. > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so far. > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear creations". > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, 2010, > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as untenable. > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right to > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use > > of > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > seems > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do > > not > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > development > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > beyond > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not > > a > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > quality > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > project > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying > > the > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, > > but > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this > > can > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within > > the > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they > > may > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > > > institution. > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > maintained > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > self-perpetuating > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to > > the > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > assumed > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > Michael's > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > > > free > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > > brief > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > notion > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > > in > > > > the > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > >> writings. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > > to > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > brings > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > access > > > > right > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > > have > > > > for > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on > > > > in > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Dec 18 06:20:00 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <76411534-5C3C-4CC4-B7D3-87C69B0EF55D@uniandes.edu.co> Hi David, I used Q-sorts many years ago, but this approach is not discussed in the book. How would you describe its value? Martin On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:57 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. > wrote: Hi Martin, does William Stephenson's Q Methodology feature in your discussion? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 18 December 2017 01:12 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed Hi Huw, In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers. The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation. I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? Martin On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: Hi Martin, Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your perspective, QR avoids defining it? Thanks, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: Hi Helen, It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned only selected chapters from the first edition. But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used for undergraduates? The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so the sites of their research will be workplaces. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. CUP: Amazon: Facebook author?s page: Martin From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Dec 18 06:20:14 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:20:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, Michael Martin On Dec 17, 2017, at 8:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth > wrote: Hi Martin, the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are distinct from observations in ethnographic research. Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the book: Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: Routledge. Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize research. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education research: Why criteria for research generalization should include population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College Record, 116(5), 1?28 Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" (qualitative?!). Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: Hi Huw, In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers. The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation. I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? Martin On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: Hi Martin, Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your perspective, QR avoids defining it? Thanks, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: Hi Helen, It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned only selected chapters from the first edition. But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used for undergraduates? The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so the sites of their research will be workplaces. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. CUP: Amazon: Facebook author?s page: Martin From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 11:42:38 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:42:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <9FF0A8D3-EE1B-4685-B728-5E58E458A969@uniandes.edu.co> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9FF0A8D3-EE1B-4685-B728-5E58E458A969@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Hello Martin, I'm inclined to think that hermeneutics would be a best approach to the being (dasein) of being human since there's no exactness but fluidity and uncertainty of "thrownness". James On 18 December 2017 at 01:12, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hello James. Well, it isn?t. But it ought to be! :) > > Martin > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:15 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > > Hello Martin, I agree with you entirely - social science is the science > of > > interpretation centring around the hermeneutic phenomenology of being > human > > - which chimes with post-positivism. James > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 22:19, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > published > >> an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative > Research. > >> It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > >> > >> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > people?s > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > of > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > beings > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > which > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human > are > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > focus > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > work > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > study > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter > of > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > >> > >> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution > >> (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson > and > >> Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of > >> Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are > >> treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of > his > >> Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > >> > >> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study > the > >> research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > Wacquant > >> joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with > the > >> men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork > >> focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews > >> illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life > builds a > >> way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the > >> ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, > of > >> being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative > research > >> to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make > themselves > >> into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical > >> freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this > >> kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. > >> > >> CUP: > >> >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > >> > >> Amazon: > >> >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > >> > >> Facebook author?s page: > >> >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 12:02:22 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:02:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi David, Halliday's "meaning is doing" would sit well with existentialism - humans call upon action in order to identify themselves (e.g. Sartre). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. James On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves on > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved aggressively > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's remark > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't believe > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules and > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. Wolff-Michael > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use Vygotsky's > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Huw, > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > emerges > > in the water movement. > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are > of > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > other > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > through > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > this, > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that > come > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > forces > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level > of > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > whole world. > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will > tell > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. > You > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > Henry > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > originary body are invisible. > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > convinced > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > Marxist. > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so > far. > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > creations". > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > 2010, > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > untenable. > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right > to > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use > > of > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > seems > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do > > not > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > development > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > beyond > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > (not > > a > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > expression > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > quality > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > project > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > his/her > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying > > the > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than > what > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > this > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, > > but > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this > > can > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within > > the > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > were > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they > > may > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > more > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > > > institution. > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect > and > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > external > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > maintained > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > Either > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it > -- > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > self-perpetuating > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to > > the > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > that > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > assumed > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > perhaps > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations > is > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether > the > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > Michael's > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > > > free > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > > brief > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > notion > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > common > > in > > > > the > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > >> writings. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > > to > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > brings > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > access > > > > right > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > > have > > > > for > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > live > > on > > > > in > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 13:46:18 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:46:18 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: James-- I think that "meaning is doing" is not a philosophical principle. When you talk to Halliday, he avoids philosophical questions unless they bear quite directly on linguistic ones. So for example. whether "matter" and "meaning" are two different substances only comes up when you are talking about language stratification and not when you are talking about cosmology. Some people, particularly in China, have tried to turn him into a philosopher; he has always resisted this. Even his essay on his Marxism (in the Bloomsbury Companion to Halliday) is mostly about his old comrades and not much about his own thinking. When he talks about his notion of consciousness (e.g. in the context of when and how children develop a content plane distinct from an expression plane), he always mentions Vygotsky. I guess that to me, "meaning is doing" is really more about Halliday's refusal to separate theory from practice, his rejection of "applied" linguistics in favor of making linguistics appliable, his agenda for a "general" linguistics (c.f. Vygotsky's agenda for a "general" psychology). Not a general theory of activity, but a general linguistics, because language is a natural whole in a way that "activity" is not (we know instantly that something is or is not language, just as we know at a glance that even a distant figure on the horizon is or is not a human being). But Halliday is certainly trans-disciplinary instead of interdisciplinary: it's always the living of life which unifies intellectual endeavours and not the little trails we sometimes make between separate intellectual cottage industries. I read a lot of Sartre as a young leftist in France and Algeria in the seventies and early eighties; the young workers I had known and admired all knew and admired the existentialists. But to me it was not Marxist at all: Sartre was constantly sniffing around psychoanalytic ideas (e.g. the textile machines that have sexual fantasies through young women in "Critique de la raison dialectique") and even racial ones (the idea of innate culpability, which Sartre was playing with in order to excuse indiscriminate terrorist attacks on Frenchmen in Algeria and also to explain Lin Biao's notorious notions of "good" and "bad" class backgrounds). I find Halliday's Marxism much more sophisticated precisely because it is much more focused; in this too Halliday resembles Vygotsky. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:02 AM, James Ma wrote: > Hi David, Halliday's "meaning is doing" would sit well with existentialism > - humans call upon action in order to identify themselves (e.g. Sartre). > I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. > James > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > on > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > aggressively > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > remark > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > believe > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > and > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > Wolff-Michael > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > Vygotsky's > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > quantity > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > where > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > continuously, > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > continued > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > emerges > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > into > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are > > of > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > stinking > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > > other > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > through > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > > this, > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that > > come > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > > forces > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > including > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > that > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level > > of > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > > whole world. > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > anywhere, > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will > > tell > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. > > You > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > > Henry > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > there > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > convinced > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > Marxist. > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so > > far. > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > creations". > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > facts, > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > > 2010, > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > untenable. > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > right > > to > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > use > > > of > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > > seems > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > do > > > not > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > development > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > beyond > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > one > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > > (not > > > a > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > expression > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > quality > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > project > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > his/her > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > identifying > > > the > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > think > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than > > what > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > > this > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > materialistically, > > > but > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > this > > > can > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > not > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > this > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > within > > > the > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > > were > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > they > > > may > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > > more > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > teaching > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect > > and > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > external > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > maintained > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > Either > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > the > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it > > -- > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration > to > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > anecdotal > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > self-perpetuating > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > to > > > the > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > > that > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, > I > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > concretely > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > assumed > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > perhaps > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > observations > > is > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > its > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > ideas > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether > > the > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > edu > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > 4 > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > Michael's > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available > as a > > > > free > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > selected > > > > > article > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > Change?". > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for > a > > > > brief > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > > notion > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > common > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > critiques > > > > > to > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > > brings > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > access > > > > > right > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > > days, > > > > > and > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > shy > > > > > bringing > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity > we > > > > have > > > > > for > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > > live > > > on > > > > > in > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 13:58:00 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:58:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks so much, David. That's really helpful. James On 18 December 2017 at 21:46, David Kellogg wrote: > James-- > > I think that "meaning is doing" is not a philosophical principle. When you > talk to Halliday, he avoids philosophical questions unless they bear quite > directly on linguistic ones. So for example. whether "matter" and "meaning" > are two different substances only comes up when you are talking about > language stratification and not when you are talking about cosmology. Some > people, particularly in China, have tried to turn him into a philosopher; > he has always resisted this. Even his essay on his Marxism (in the > Bloomsbury Companion to Halliday) is mostly about his old comrades and not > much about his own thinking. When he talks about his notion of > consciousness (e.g. in the context of when and how children develop a > content plane distinct from an expression plane), he always mentions > Vygotsky. > > I guess that to me, "meaning is doing" is really more about Halliday's > refusal to separate theory from practice, his rejection of "applied" > linguistics in favor of making linguistics appliable, his agenda for a > "general" linguistics (c.f. Vygotsky's agenda for a "general" psychology). > Not a general theory of activity, but a general linguistics, because > language is a natural whole in a way that "activity" is not (we know > instantly that something is or is not language, just as we know at a glance > that even a distant figure on the horizon is or is not a human being). But > Halliday is certainly trans-disciplinary instead of interdisciplinary: it's > always the living of life which unifies intellectual endeavours and not the > little trails we sometimes make between separate intellectual cottage > industries. > > I read a lot of Sartre as a young leftist in France and Algeria in the > seventies and early eighties; the young workers I had known and admired all > knew and admired the existentialists. But to me it was not Marxist at all: > Sartre was constantly sniffing around psychoanalytic ideas (e.g. the > textile machines that have sexual fantasies through young women in > "Critique de la raison dialectique") and even racial ones (the idea of > innate culpability, which Sartre was playing with in order to excuse > indiscriminate terrorist attacks on Frenchmen in Algeria and also to > explain Lin Biao's notorious notions of "good" and "bad" class > backgrounds). I find Halliday's Marxism much more sophisticated > precisely because it is much more focused; in this too Halliday resembles > Vygotsky. > > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:02 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > Hi David, Halliday's "meaning is doing" would sit well with > existentialism > > - humans call upon action in order to identify themselves (e.g. Sartre). > > I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. > > James > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond > my > > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them > in a > > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics > and > > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an > argument > > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > > on > > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > > aggressively > > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and > it > > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > > remark > > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > > believe > > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules > as > > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > > and > > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying > Vygotsky > > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > > Wolff-Michael > > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > > Vygotsky's > > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied > mathematician, I > > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > > quantity > > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > > where > > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between > two > > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > > continuously, > > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > > continued > > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > > emerges > > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > > into > > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments > are > > > of > > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > > stinking > > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > > > other > > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > > through > > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > > > this, > > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change > that > > > come > > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > > > forces > > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > > including > > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > > that > > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = > word-meaning), > > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest > level > > > of > > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing > the > > > > whole world. > > > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > > anywhere, > > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, > multiplication, > > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists > will > > > tell > > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of > substance. > > > You > > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > > > Henry > > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the > first, > > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on > the > > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > > there > > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > > convinced > > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > > Marxist. > > > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went > so > > > far. > > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > > creations". > > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > > facts, > > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > > > 2010, > > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > > untenable. > > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > > right > > > to > > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------- > > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > > University of Victoria > > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > > use > > > > of > > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the > focus > > > > seems > > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > > do > > > > not > > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > > development > > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not > previously > > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > > beyond > > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > > one > > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > > > (not > > > > a > > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > > expression > > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > > quality > > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > > project > > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > > his/her > > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > > identifying > > > > the > > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > > think > > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other > than > > > what > > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > > > this > > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > > materialistically, > > > > but > > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > > this > > > > can > > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to > certain > > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > > not > > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > > this > > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > > within > > > > the > > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > > > were > > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > > they > > > > may > > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > > > more > > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > > teaching > > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of > affect > > > and > > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > > external > > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > > maintained > > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > > Either > > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > > the > > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate > it > > > -- > > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened > concentration > > to > > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > > anecdotal > > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can > be > > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > > to > > > > the > > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I > take > > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as > imputing > > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > > > that > > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it > is, > > I > > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > > concretely > > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > > assumed > > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > > perhaps > > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > > observations > > > is > > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > > its > > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from > various > > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, > environment-subject, > > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > > ideas > > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is > whether > > > the > > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > edu > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > > 4 > > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > > Michael's > > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available > > as a > > > > > free > > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > > selected > > > > > > article > > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > > Change?". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access > for > > a > > > > > brief > > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > Vygotskian > > > > > notion > > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > > common > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > > critiques > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > article > > > > > brings > > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > > access > > > > > > right > > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > coming > > > > days, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > > shy > > > > > > bringing > > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique > opportunity > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > > > live > > > > on > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 14:18:42 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:18:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, I'll bite. How is it that or in what sense does Vygotsky reject interpret(at)ive (qualitative) methods? Interested to hear more. -greg On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative > researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of > research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of > statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are > distinct from observations in ethnographic research. > > Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and > mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. > scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the > distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the > book: > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational > research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: > Routledge. > > Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the > first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize > research. > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education > research: Why criteria for research generalization should include > population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College > Record, 116(5), 1?28 > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into > qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. > > You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" > (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" > (qualitative?!). > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > Hi Huw, > > > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not > > one uses numbers. > > > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold > > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one > seeks a > > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is > > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations > are > > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: > > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. > And > > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always > > involves theory and interpretation. > > > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. > But > > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something > > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > > > Martin > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Helen, > > >> > > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - > > and > > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > > fieldwork, > > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > > class. > > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > > which > > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the > syllabus > > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I > assigned > > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > > >> > > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! > :) > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi > > Minh > > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be > used > > >> for undergraduates? > > >>> > > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions > > so > > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > >>> > > >>> H > > >>> > > >>> Helena Worthen > > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > > Qualitative > > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > >>>> > > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of > qualitative > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > people?s > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > qualitative > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > > of > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > beings > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > which > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > human > > are > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > focus > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > > work > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > study > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > matter > > of > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > >>>> > > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > > think > > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter > 1. > > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several > chapters: > > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > > theory, > > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > >>>> > > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case > study > > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > > terms > > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while > his > > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with > this > > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > > helps us > > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > > human > > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in > which > > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can > better > > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both > exciting > > and > > >> important. > > >>>> > > >>>> CUP: > > >>>> > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > >>>> > > >>>> Amazon: > > >>>> > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > >>>> > > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > > >>>> > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > >>>> > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 15:10:25 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 23:10:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9FF0A8D3-EE1B-4685-B728-5E58E458A969@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: James, Apropos fluidity and your prior 3 points of DM, you might like this (Ernst von Glaserfield on Piaget and Cybernetics): http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/1503.html For "thrown-ness" you might like this: "Often a change in active orientation is triggered by a problem in action. For instance, an action that does not bring about the expected result, which may result in a new yet familiar process of questioning. The questioning embodies a certain ?thrown-ness? in which a new or altered active-orientation may be the resulting outcome. The manifestation of new ideas realise motivated actions on the basis of the newly formed active orientation in which they arise. Similarly, imaginatively seeing the transformative steps for accomplishing a task may yield the appropriate orientation to bring it about." This is from one of my draft's online ( https://www.academia.edu/24660557/Active_Orientation). I hope to write a more technical version in the forthcoming year when I have hopefully completed a rather mammoth task. Also, your response re the meaning post seemed to be contrary to what I was posting -- nothing wrong with meaning per se, but rather the fusion of two similar terms which from a genetic perspective (of reflection) equate to the same thing... Best, Huw On 18 December 2017 at 19:42, James Ma wrote: > Hello Martin, I'm inclined to think that hermeneutics would be a best > approach to the being (dasein) of being human since there's no exactness > but fluidity and uncertainty of "thrownness". > James > > On 18 December 2017 at 01:12, Martin John Packer > wrote: > > > Hello James. Well, it isn?t. But it ought to be! :) > > > > Martin > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:15 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > > Hello Martin, I agree with you entirely - social science is the science > > of > > > interpretation centring around the hermeneutic phenomenology of being > > human > > > - which chimes with post-positivism. James > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 22:19, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > published > > >> an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative > > Research. > > >> It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > >> > > >> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > people?s > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > qualitative > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > > of > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > beings > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > which > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > human > > are > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > focus > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > > work > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > study > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > matter > > of > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > >> > > >> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > constitution > > >> (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson > > and > > >> Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion > of > > >> Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are > > >> treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and > of > > his > > >> Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > >> > > >> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study > > the > > >> research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > > Wacquant > > >> joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with > > the > > >> men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > fieldwork > > >> focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his > interviews > > >> illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life > > builds a > > >> way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see > the > > >> ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, > > of > > >> being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative > > research > > >> to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make > > themselves > > >> into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the > ethical > > >> freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes > this > > >> kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. > > >> > > >> CUP: > > >> > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > >> > > >> Amazon: > > >> > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > >> > > >> Facebook author?s page: > > >> > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > >> > > >> Martin > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > Virus-free. > > > www.avast.com > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Dec 18 16:13:50 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:13:50 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Message-ID: A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie of perezhivanie --- I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of Michael's article. Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in cold weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of perzhivanie. Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was doing both times I used the term. Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems important to know. Thanks for the interesting discussion. mike For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but are interested in qualitative research, this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! :-) mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: TQR Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu [image: TQR Instagram] [image: TQR Facebook] [image: TQR Twitter] [image: The Qualitative Report] Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] *The Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference * - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated 12/18/2017) * - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) * - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith * - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting submissions on a case by case basis * - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) * - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* *Featured *Article *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland *Featured *Article *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania *How To *Article *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* Jessica Rizk, McMaster University Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa *How To *Article *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional Development* Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel *Featured Blog* *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* [image: https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large-MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] *TQR Resource of the Week* *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* *News and Notes* - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in our DNA - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, 2018. - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to Qualitative Analysis - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human Understanding - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated 12/18/2017) - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) [image: https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative-analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC ? Call for Posters (Deadline: December 31, 2017) - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) ? Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method ? 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography ? Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ? Call for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. 1, 2018) - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method ? 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding ? 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 - Qualitative Text Analysis ? 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological Justice ? 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method ? 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions (Deadline: Open) - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in English, German, and Spanish - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members *Employment Opportunities* - Assistant Director Academic ? University of Cincinnati - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership ? Saint Joseph?s University - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research ? University of Cincinnati - Design Researcher ? Microsoft - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager ? Peninsula College - Market Research Manager ? ComServe Systems - MSW Faculty ? Louisiana College - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning ? Syracuse University - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] ? University of Nevada Las Vegas - Principle Research Scientist ? Western Governors University - Research Assistant ? Johns Hopkins University - Research Associate ? University of Utah - Research Program Coordinator ? Johns Hopkins University - UX Strategist -Avalere Health [image: Powerful Tools II 2] [image: https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 -7796 You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. To unsubscribe please click here . -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 50522 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0006.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27105 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0003.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 17452 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0007.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 38388 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0008.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46612 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0004.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 3724 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0009.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 3835 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0010.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 3530 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0011.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 235360 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171218/14811b48/attachment-0005.jpg From ablunden@mira.net Mon Dec 18 16:28:36 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:28:36 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have always taken it that Marxists (Vygotsky included) take "consciousness" to be a very inclusive term, as opposed to people like the Philosophy of Mind people, cognitive psychologists and analytical philosophy generally, who take "consciousness" to mean something more like what Vygotsky would mean by "conscious awareness." For example, John R. Searle says that consciousness is what begins when you wake up in the morning and ends when you go to sleep or die." Others (such as Hegel) reserve "consciousness" for some special grade of consciousness, but take as fundamental some more inclusive term such as "Psyche" (or "Seele" in German) which play the same role as "consciousness" does in Marxism. I don't wish to derail the discussion around Michael's paper, and look forward to more discussion around this expression: "perezhivanie of perezhivanie," but at the time Vygotsky used this expression, as I recall (perhaps incorrectly) in the context of struggles against dualist and behaviouristic conceptions, a point at which the concept of "consciousness" was the subject of deep confusion. I apologise for the distraction, and look forward to discussion of "perezhivanie of perezhivanie." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 19/12/2017 11:13 AM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis * > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large-MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative-analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 16:43:44 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:43:44 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike-- The "rudimentary mental life" that is largely affective and based in the midbrain is the (transitional) central neoformation of birth, and it lives on as the affect in affective perception. One of the rare moments he finds himself in agreement with Stern: "W. Stern assumes that in the newborn, together with reflexes, there must be the first traces of consciousness that develop very soon into an impressive and many sided mental life. Of course, we can speak only of the rudimentary state of mental life of the newborn from which we must exclude all strictly intellectual and volitional phenomena of consciousness. There are neither innate ideas nor actual perceptions, that is, comprehension of external objects and processes as such, nor, finally, conscious desire or striving. The only thing that we can assume on a sure basis is an indistinct, unclear state of consciousness in which sensible and emotional parts are still inseparably merged, so that we may call them the sensible, emotional states or emotionally stressed states or sensations. The presence of pleasant and unpleasant emotionalstates i evident from the childr's general appearance, expression of the face, or character of the cry as in the first days of his life. (English Volume Five, p. 212). " The whole of 211-215 is Vygotsky's argument that what exists at birth is consciousness, though (because a critical neoformation) not conciousness as we know it. One of his arguments (pedology of the adolescent, and also lectures on pedology) against recapitulationism is that consciousness emerges at the beginning of the story and sexual reproduction at the end, while in phylogeny it's pretty much the other way around. I don't think that Vygotsky's earlier formulation--"the perezhivanie of perezhivanie"--is incorrect: if we are talking loosely about the "meaning of meaning" then it fits your bus ride example almost perfectly. You can mystify absolutely anything if you just take context away from a text, but if we are going to take meaning seriously, we have to take context seriously. For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at all. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:13 AM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 17:00:38 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:00:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, there might be some light on the question of perezhivanie of perezhivanie from the German Ideology. Marx/Engels write: Where there exists a relation, it exists for me, the animal does not "relate" to anything and not at all. For the animal its relation to others does not relate as relation. (((Wo ein Verh?ltnis existiert, da existiert es fu?r mich, das Tier ?verh?lt" sich zu Nichts und u?berhaupt nicht. Fu?r das Tier existiert sein Verh?ltnis zu andern nicht als Verh?ltnis" p.30)))) As I said before, in phenomenological (post-Husserlian) phenomenology, there is Being, but consciousness can be only with beings (things) that allow past being to be made present again. This making present is central to consciousness in the formulations of Husserl and Mead (from whom we can learn a lot). The organism-relation exists in the animal world, but not for the animal and not as relation. Marx, in *Capital* shows how the ideal emerges. It is a human-human relation that reflects itself in human-thing relations, and the human-thing relation reflects itself in human-human relations (that's why we have perezhivanie of perezhivanie). Some thing participating in the relation then has synecdochical function in that it comes to stand for the relation as a whole and especially for anything ideal (use-value for commodities, meanings for words, etc) Or so it makes sense to me Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 17:38:14 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:38:14 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Huw, I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. When we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry into sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it is not a natural science project. When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in the mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, the social sciences, or the humanities. I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I use whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool, such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human relations. And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities would publish (like Semiotica). But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does apparently great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I am interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and how they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any more), I look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular theory. I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is hard to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical framework and the body of the literature in the field. Maybe this helps (some) understand Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. In > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > achieve what is claimed. > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant to > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other words, > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is to > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a v. > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which is > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant > to > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not that > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it has > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) does > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may argue > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > I hope this helps! > > Best, > Huw > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > on > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > aggressively > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > remark > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > believe > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > and > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > Wolff-Michael > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > Vygotsky's > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > quantity > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > where > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > continuously, > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > continued > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > emerges > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > into > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are > of > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > stinking > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > other > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > through > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > this, > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that > come > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > forces > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > including > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > that > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level > of > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > > whole world. > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > anywhere, > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will > tell > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. > You > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > Henry > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > there > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > convinced > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > Marxist. > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so > far. > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > creations". > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > facts, > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > 2010, > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > untenable. > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > right to > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > use > > > of > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > > seems > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > do > > > not > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > development > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > beyond > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > one > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > (not > > > a > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > expression > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > quality > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > project > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > his/her > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > identifying > > > the > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > think > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than > what > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > this > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > materialistically, > > > but > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > this > > > can > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > not > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > this > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > within > > > the > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > were > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > they > > > may > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > more > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > teaching > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect > and > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > external > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > maintained > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > Either > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > the > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it > -- > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration > to > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > anecdotal > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > self-perpetuating > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > to > > > the > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > that > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, > I > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > concretely > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > assumed > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > perhaps > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > observations is > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > its > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > ideas > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether > the > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > 4 > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > Michael's > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as > a > > > > free > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > selected > > > > > article > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > Change?". > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for > a > > > > brief > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > > notion > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > common > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > critiques > > > > > to > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > > brings > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > access > > > > > right > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > > days, > > > > > and > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > shy > > > > > bringing > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity > we > > > > have > > > > > for > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > live > > > on > > > > > in > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Dec 18 18:16:14 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 02:16:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: So you are saying, Michael, that theories are situation specific collective cognitive tools (to simplify just a little bit?) Mike On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:41 PM Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Huw, > I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. When > we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I > provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry into > sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it is > not a natural science project. > > When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to > model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using > mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of > catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an > epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in the > mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different > situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question > whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, the > social sciences, or the humanities. > > I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I use > whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool, > such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of > pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human relations. > And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities > would publish (like Semiotica). > > But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is > coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and > tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does apparently > great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I am > interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and how > they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any more), I > look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different > theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information > processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis > (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that > one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular theory. > I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is hard > to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical > framework and the body of the literature in the field. > > Maybe this helps (some) understand > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > < > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/ > >* > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please > > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. > In > > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a > > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > > achieve what is claimed. > > > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. > > > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant > to > > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the > > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other > words, > > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is > to > > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a > v. > > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which > is > > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant > > to > > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is > > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not > that > > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it > has > > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) > does > > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may > argue > > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a > > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > > > I hope this helps! > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond > my > > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them > in a > > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics > and > > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an > argument > > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > > on > > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > > aggressively > > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and > it > > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > > remark > > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > > believe > > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules > as > > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > > and > > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying > Vygotsky > > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > > Wolff-Michael > > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > > Vygotsky's > > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied > mathematician, I > > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > > quantity > > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > > where > > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between > two > > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > > continuously, > > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > > continued > > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > emerges > > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > > into > > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments > are > > of > > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > > stinking > > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > > other > > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > through > > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > > this, > > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change > that > > come > > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > > forces > > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > > including > > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > > that > > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = > word-meaning), > > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest > level > > of > > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing > the > > > > whole world. > > > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > > anywhere, > > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, > multiplication, > > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists > will > > tell > > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of > substance. > > You > > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > > Henry > > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the > first, > > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on > the > > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > > there > > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > convinced > > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > > Marxist. > > > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went > so > > far. > > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > creations". > > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > > facts, > > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > > 2010, > > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > untenable. > > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > > right to > > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------- > > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > > University of Victoria > > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > > use > > > > of > > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the > focus > > > > seems > > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > > do > > > > not > > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > > development > > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not > previously > > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > > beyond > > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > > one > > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > > (not > > > > a > > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > expression > > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > > quality > > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > > project > > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > his/her > > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > > identifying > > > > the > > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > > think > > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other > than > > what > > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > > this > > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > > materialistically, > > > > but > > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > > this > > > > can > > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to > certain > > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > > not > > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > > this > > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > > within > > > > the > > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > > were > > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > > they > > > > may > > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > > more > > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > > teaching > > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of > affect > > and > > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > external > > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > > maintained > > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > Either > > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > > the > > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate > it > > -- > > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened > concentration > > to > > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > > anecdotal > > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can > be > > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > > to > > > > the > > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I > take > > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as > imputing > > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > > that > > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it > is, > > I > > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > > concretely > > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > > assumed > > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > perhaps > > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > > observations is > > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > > its > > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from > various > > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, > environment-subject, > > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > > ideas > > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is > whether > > the > > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > > 4 > > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > > Michael's > > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available > as > > a > > > > > free > > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > > selected > > > > > > article > > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > > Change?". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access > for > > a > > > > > brief > > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > Vygotskian > > > > > notion > > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > common > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > > critiques > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > article > > > > > brings > > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > > access > > > > > > right > > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > coming > > > > days, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > > shy > > > > > > bringing > > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique > opportunity > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > > live > > > > on > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Mon Dec 18 18:33:07 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:33:07 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Mike, I haven't thought about it in these terms. But because I am working across disciplines, I know that whether a theory makes sense in the context of an article is a question of the community within which I publish. As an empirical researcher, I take the position that whether a method or theory is useful is an empirical question, depending on the object of the research and on the particular social context within which you are looking for answers. In this sense, theory and method are indeed collective tools, ways of thinking about the situation and doing the data collection. Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:16 PM, mike cole wrote: > So you are saying, Michael, that theories are situation specific collective > cognitive tools (to simplify just a little bit?) > > Mike > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:41 PM Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Huw, > > I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. > When > > we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I > > provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry > into > > sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it > is > > not a natural science project. > > > > When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to > > model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using > > mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of > > catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an > > epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in > the > > mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different > > situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question > > whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, > the > > social sciences, or the humanities. > > > > I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I > use > > whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool, > > such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of > > pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human > relations. > > And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities > > would publish (like Semiotica). > > > > But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is > > coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and > > tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does > apparently > > great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I > am > > interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and > how > > they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any > more), I > > look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different > > theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information > > processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis > > (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that > > one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular > theory. > > I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is > hard > > to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical > > framework and the body of the literature in the field. > > > > Maybe this helps (some) understand > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > < > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new- > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/ > > >* > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can > please > > > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > > > > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural > science. > > In > > > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are > a > > > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > > > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > > > achieve what is claimed. > > > > > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > > > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research > efforts. > > > > > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > > > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really > relevant > > to > > > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to > the > > > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other > > words, > > > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is > > to > > > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although > a > > v. > > > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which > > is > > > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > > > > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly > relevant > > > to > > > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > > > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it > is > > > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not > > that > > > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > > > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > > > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > > > > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it > > has > > > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > > > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) > > does > > > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may > > argue > > > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to > such a > > > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > > > > > I hope this helps! > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text > in > > > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, > its > > > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond > > my > > > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them > > in a > > > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to > their > > > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics > > and > > > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking > corpse, > > > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an > > argument > > > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This > leaves > > > on > > > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > > > aggressively > > > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and > > it > > > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking > my > > > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > > > remark > > > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to > break > > > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > > > believe > > > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about > molecules > > as > > > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water > molecules > > > and > > > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying > > Vygotsky > > > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own > beloved > > > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > > > Vygotsky's > > > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate > him. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied > > mathematician, I > > > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > > > quantity > > > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > > > where > > > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between > > two > > > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > > > continuously, > > > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > > > continued > > > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > > emerges > > > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who > uses > > > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > > > into > > > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments > > are > > > of > > > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > > > stinking > > > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that > the > > > other > > > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > > through > > > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material > shows > > > this, > > > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change > > that > > > come > > > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are > no > > > forces > > > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > > > including > > > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > > > that > > > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the > system. > > > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky > in > > > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = > > word-meaning), > > > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest > > level > > > of > > > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing > > the > > > > > whole world. > > > > > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > > > anywhere, > > > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, > > multiplication, > > > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists > > will > > > tell > > > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of > > substance. > > > You > > > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of > Michel > > > Henry > > > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the > > first, > > > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on > > the > > > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > > > there > > > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > > convinced > > > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is > not > > > > > Marxist. > > > > > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went > > so > > > far. > > > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed > the > > > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > > creations". > > > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > > > facts, > > > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from > Zaversheva, > > > 2010, > > > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > > untenable. > > > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > > > right to > > > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > > > University of Victoria > > > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth faculty/mroth/> > > > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & > Engels > > > use > > > > > of > > > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the > > focus > > > > > seems > > > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour > that > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > > > development > > > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not > > previously > > > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" > useful > > > > > beyond > > > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description > of > > > one > > > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one > quality > > > (not > > > > > a > > > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > > expression > > > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a > new > > > > > quality > > > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity > (to > > > > > project > > > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > > his/her > > > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > > > identifying > > > > > the > > > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > > > think > > > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other > > than > > > what > > > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to > show > > > this > > > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object > of > > > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > > > materialistically, > > > > > but > > > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider > how > > > this > > > > > can > > > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to > > certain > > > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods > do > > > not > > > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > > > this > > > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > > > within > > > > > the > > > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous > methods > > > were > > > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > > > they > > > > > may > > > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without > knowing > > > more > > > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > > > teaching > > > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of > > affect > > > and > > > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > > external > > > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > > > maintained > > > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > > Either > > > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit > from > > > the > > > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to > articulate > > it > > > -- > > > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened > > concentration > > > to > > > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > > > anecdotal > > > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can > > be > > > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to > agent > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I > > take > > > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps > some > > > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as > > imputing > > > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) > of > > > that > > > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it > > is, > > > I > > > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > > > concretely > > > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and > hypothetically > > > > > assumed > > > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > > perhaps > > > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > > > observations is > > > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject > and > > > its > > > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from > > various > > > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, > > environment-subject, > > > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > > > ideas > > > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is > > whether > > > the > > > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > > Issue > > > 4 > > > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > > > Michael's > > > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still > available > > as > > > a > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login > or > > > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > > > selected > > > > > > > article > > > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > > > Change?". > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access > > for > > > a > > > > > > brief > > > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > > Vygotskian > > > > > > notion > > > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > > common > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > > > critiques > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > > article > > > > > > brings > > > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is > open > > > > > access > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > > coming > > > > > days, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to > be > > > shy > > > > > > > bringing > > > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique > > opportunity > > > we > > > > > > have > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy > may > > > live > > > > > on > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > research/literature. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Tue Dec 19 00:19:07 2017 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:19:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <76411534-5C3C-4CC4-B7D3-87C69B0EF55D@uniandes.edu.co> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <76411534-5C3C-4CC4-B7D3-87C69B0EF55D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Have not really been following this thread too closely but Q transcends the qualitative-quantitative divide (I think), not that Stephenson ever characterised Q methodology in this way. A bit of biography: my doctoral supervisor Jim Good, is the current editor of the Journal of Operant Subjectivity, so I have been on the periphery of the Q community for some time now. It is perhaps time I took a stand on Q since my view of it is (as ever) a tad heterodox. See this for my last musings on Stephenson https://www.academia.edu/4214686/PRELIMINARY_NOTES_ON_WILLIAM_STEPHENSON_S_SCIENCE_OF_SUBJECTIVITY_Q_METHODOLOGY_AND_ITS_CONCEPTUAL_RELATIONSHIP_TO_JAMES_GIBSON_S_ECOLOGICAL_PSYCHOLOGY I noticed the phrase 'mixed methods' being used in this thread; there has been a good deal of debate about this among the Q community. The Stephenson traditionalist deny Q is in any way concerned with mixed methods. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer Sent: 18 December 2017 14:20 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed Hi David, I used Q-sorts many years ago, but this approach is not discussed in the book. How would you describe its value? Martin On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:57 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. > wrote: Hi Martin, does William Stephenson's Q Methodology feature in your discussion? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 18 December 2017 01:12 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed Hi Huw, In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers. The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation. I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? Martin On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: Hi Martin, Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your perspective, QR avoids defining it? Thanks, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: Hi Helen, It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class. I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the syllabus from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I assigned only selected chapters from the first edition. But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! :) On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used for undergraduates? The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so the sites of their research will be workplaces. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people?s subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in which they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being human are formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I focus on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1. Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several chapters: there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory, and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with this life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of human being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and important. CUP: Amazon: Facebook author?s page: Martin From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 02:09:37 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:09:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's path to knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, evolving social world? Thank you. James On 18 December 2017 at 22:18, Greg Thompson wrote: > Michael, > I'll bite. > How is it that or in what sense does Vygotsky reject interpret(at)ive > (qualitative) methods? > Interested to hear more. > -greg > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative > > researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of > > research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms > of > > statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which > are > > distinct from observations in ethnographic research. > > > > Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" > and > > mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading > U.S. > > scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the > > distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the > > book: > > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational > > research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: > > Routledge. > > > > Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the > > first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize > > research. > > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education > > research: Why criteria for research generalization should include > > population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College > > Record, 116(5), 1?28 > > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into > > qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. > > > > You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" > > (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" > > (qualitative?!). > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Huw, > > > > > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > > > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > > > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or > not > > > one uses numbers. > > > > > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > > > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > > > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the > ?gold > > > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one > > seeks a > > > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > > > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > > > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it > is > > > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > > > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations > > are > > > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be > inferred: > > > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. > > And > > > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it > always > > > involves theory and interpretation. > > > > > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > > > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > > > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. > > But > > > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring > something > > > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Helen, > > > >> > > > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > > > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory > - > > > and > > > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > > > fieldwork, > > > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > > > class. > > > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > > > which > > > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the > > syllabus > > > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I > > assigned > > > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > > > >> > > > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! > > :) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen < > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > > > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho > Chi > > > Minh > > > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be > > used > > > >> for undergraduates? > > > >>> > > > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade > Unions > > > so > > > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > > >>> > > > >>> H > > > >>> > > > >>> Helena Worthen > > > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > > > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > > > Qualitative > > > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of > > qualitative > > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > > people?s > > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > > qualitative > > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological > dualisms > > > of > > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > > beings > > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of > the > > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > > which > > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > > human > > > are > > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > > focus > > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic > field > > > work > > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > > study > > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > > matter > > > of > > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > > > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > > > think > > > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter > > 1. > > > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several > > chapters: > > > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > > > theory, > > > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case > > study > > > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south > Chicago. > > > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > > > terms > > > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His > ethnographic > > > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while > > his > > > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with > > this > > > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > > > helps us > > > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > > > human > > > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > > > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in > > which > > > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can > > better > > > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in > my > > > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both > > exciting > > > and > > > >> important. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> CUP: > > > >>>> > > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Amazon: > > > >>>> > > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > > > >>>> > > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Martin > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 02:19:57 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks Michael, I would also make some suppositions here with respect to underlying understandings that are applied irrespective of the mode of evidence gathering being used. In particular, the nature of quality. I would suggest that the quality you see in your own discourse analysis work is a finer and more nuanced quality than that presented by someone not familiar with quality-as-state or quality-as-system. This would be tantamount to saying that there is a deeper theory you are also using, irrespective of whether it is explicitly articulated, that would guide you in enriching the otherwise more flatter work. In other words, the methods may not sufficiently identify what you are looking for, that irrespective of your articulating it, you are able to perceive rigorous aspects that are potentially not catered for by the mode of presentation. In a quirky way, one could say that this is not being faithful to the methods, to the degree that you are then using 'invisible' guidance (from the perspective of someone only familiar with the method in question). To this I would say that there are deeper understanding that _could_ be articulated and (re-) imported into the methods (where they are decidedly flat). Similar circumstances could be applied to CHAT, with the caveat that this is a corpus which contains deeper levels which haven't really been touched on here. Does this seem like an accurate depiction, Michael? Best, Huw On 19 December 2017 at 01:38, Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Huw, > I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. When > we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I > provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry into > sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it is > not a natural science project. > > When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to > model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using > mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of > catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an > epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in the > mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different > situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question > whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, the > social sciences, or the humanities. > > I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I use > whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool, > such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of > pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human relations. > And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities > would publish (like Semiotica). > > But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is > coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and > tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does apparently > great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I am > interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and how > they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any more), I > look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different > theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information > processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis > (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that > one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular theory. > I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is hard > to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical > framework and the body of the literature in the field. > > Maybe this helps (some) understand > > Michael > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please > > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. > In > > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a > > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > > achieve what is claimed. > > > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. > > > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant > to > > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the > > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other > words, > > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is > to > > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a > v. > > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which > is > > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant > > to > > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is > > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not > that > > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it > has > > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) > does > > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may > argue > > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a > > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > > > I hope this helps! > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond > my > > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them > in a > > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics > and > > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an > argument > > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > > on > > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > > aggressively > > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and > it > > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > > remark > > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > > believe > > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules > as > > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > > and > > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying > Vygotsky > > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > > Wolff-Michael > > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > > Vygotsky's > > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied > mathematician, I > > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > > quantity > > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > > where > > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between > two > > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > > continuously, > > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > > continued > > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > emerges > > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > > into > > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments > are > > of > > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > > stinking > > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > > other > > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > through > > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > > this, > > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change > that > > come > > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > > forces > > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > > including > > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > > that > > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = > word-meaning), > > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest > level > > of > > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing > the > > > > whole world. > > > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > > anywhere, > > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, > multiplication, > > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists > will > > tell > > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of > substance. > > You > > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > > Henry > > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the > first, > > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on > the > > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > > there > > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > convinced > > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > > Marxist. > > > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went > so > > far. > > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > creations". > > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > > facts, > > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > > 2010, > > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > untenable. > > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > > right to > > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------- > > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > > University of Victoria > > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > > use > > > > of > > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the > focus > > > > seems > > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > > do > > > > not > > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > > development > > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not > previously > > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > > beyond > > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > > one > > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > > (not > > > > a > > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > expression > > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > > quality > > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > > project > > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > his/her > > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > > identifying > > > > the > > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > > think > > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other > than > > what > > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > > this > > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > > materialistically, > > > > but > > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > > this > > > > can > > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to > certain > > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > > not > > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > > this > > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > > within > > > > the > > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > > were > > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > > they > > > > may > > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > > more > > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > > teaching > > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of > affect > > and > > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > external > > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > > maintained > > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > Either > > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > > the > > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate > it > > -- > > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened > concentration > > to > > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > > anecdotal > > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can > be > > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > > to > > > > the > > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I > take > > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as > imputing > > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > > that > > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it > is, > > I > > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > > concretely > > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > > assumed > > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > perhaps > > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > > observations is > > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > > its > > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from > various > > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, > environment-subject, > > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > > ideas > > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is > whether > > the > > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > Issue > > 4 > > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > > Michael's > > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available > as > > a > > > > > free > > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > > selected > > > > > > article > > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > > Change?". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access > for > > a > > > > > brief > > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > Vygotskian > > > > > notion > > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > common > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > > critiques > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > article > > > > > brings > > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > > access > > > > > > right > > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > coming > > > > days, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > > shy > > > > > > bringing > > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique > opportunity > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > > live > > > > on > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 05:01:20 2017 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:01:20 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Huw, I am not sure about "deeper," but I see your comment related to the figure-ground phenomenon. Thus, whatever you articulate is figure against ground. There is no figure without unseen ground. Perhaps that is your "deeper". Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Thanks Michael, > > I would also make some suppositions here with respect to underlying > understandings that are applied irrespective of the mode of evidence > gathering being used. In particular, the nature of quality. I would suggest > that the quality you see in your own discourse analysis work is a finer and > more nuanced quality than that presented by someone not familiar with > quality-as-state or quality-as-system. This would be tantamount to saying > that there is a deeper theory you are also using, irrespective of whether > it is explicitly articulated, that would guide you in enriching the > otherwise more flatter work. In other words, the methods may not > sufficiently identify what you are looking for, that irrespective of your > articulating it, you are able to perceive rigorous aspects that are > potentially not catered for by the mode of presentation. > > In a quirky way, one could say that this is not being faithful to the > methods, to the degree that you are then using 'invisible' guidance (from > the perspective of someone only familiar with the method in question). To > this I would say that there are deeper understanding that _could_ be > articulated and (re-) imported into the methods (where they are decidedly > flat). Similar circumstances could be applied to CHAT, with the caveat that > this is a corpus which contains deeper levels which haven't really been > touched on here. > > Does this seem like an accurate depiction, Michael? > > Best, > Huw > > On 19 December 2017 at 01:38, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Huw, > > I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory. > When > > we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I > > provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry > into > > sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it > is > > not a natural science project. > > > > When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to > > model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using > > mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of > > catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an > > epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in > the > > mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different > > situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question > > whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences, > the > > social sciences, or the humanities. > > > > I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I > use > > whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool, > > such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of > > pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human > relations. > > And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities > > would publish (like Semiotica). > > > > But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is > > coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and > > tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does > apparently > > great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I > am > > interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and > how > > they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any > more), I > > look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different > > theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information > > processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis > > (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that > > one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular > theory. > > I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is > hard > > to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical > > framework and the body of the literature in the field. > > > > Maybe this helps (some) understand > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can > please > > > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > > > > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural > science. > > In > > > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are > a > > > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > > > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > > > achieve what is claimed. > > > > > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > > > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research > efforts. > > > > > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > > > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really > relevant > > to > > > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to > the > > > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other > > words, > > > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is > > to > > > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although > a > > v. > > > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which > > is > > > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > > > > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly > relevant > > > to > > > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > > > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it > is > > > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not > > that > > > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > > > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > > > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > > > > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it > > has > > > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > > > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) > > does > > > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may > > argue > > > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to > such a > > > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > > > > > I hope this helps! > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text > in > > > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, > its > > > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond > > my > > > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them > > in a > > > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to > their > > > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics > > and > > > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking > corpse, > > > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an > > argument > > > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This > leaves > > > on > > > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > > > aggressively > > > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and > > it > > > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking > my > > > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > > > remark > > > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to > break > > > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > > > believe > > > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about > molecules > > as > > > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water > molecules > > > and > > > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying > > Vygotsky > > > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own > beloved > > > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > > > Vygotsky's > > > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate > him. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied > > mathematician, I > > > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > > > quantity > > > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > > > where > > > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between > > two > > > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > > > continuously, > > > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > > > continued > > > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > > > emerges > > > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who > uses > > > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > > > into > > > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments > > are > > > of > > > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > > > stinking > > > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that > the > > > other > > > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > > > through > > > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material > shows > > > this, > > > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change > > that > > > come > > > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are > no > > > forces > > > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > > > including > > > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > > > that > > > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the > system. > > > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky > in > > > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = > > word-meaning), > > > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest > > level > > > of > > > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing > > the > > > > > whole world. > > > > > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > > > anywhere, > > > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, > > multiplication, > > > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists > > will > > > tell > > > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of > > substance. > > > You > > > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of > Michel > > > Henry > > > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the > > first, > > > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on > > the > > > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > > > there > > > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > > > convinced > > > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is > not > > > > > Marxist. > > > > > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went > > so > > > far. > > > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed > the > > > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > > > creations". > > > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > > > facts, > > > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from > Zaversheva, > > > 2010, > > > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > > > untenable. > > > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > > > right to > > > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > > > University of Victoria > > > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth faculty/mroth/> > > > > > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & > Engels > > > use > > > > > of > > > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the > > focus > > > > > seems > > > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour > that > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > > > development > > > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not > > previously > > > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" > useful > > > > > beyond > > > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description > of > > > one > > > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one > quality > > > (not > > > > > a > > > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > > > expression > > > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a > new > > > > > quality > > > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity > (to > > > > > project > > > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > > > his/her > > > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > > > identifying > > > > > the > > > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > > > think > > > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other > > than > > > what > > > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to > show > > > this > > > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object > of > > > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > > > materialistically, > > > > > but > > > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider > how > > > this > > > > > can > > > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to > > certain > > > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods > do > > > not > > > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > > > this > > > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > > > within > > > > > the > > > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous > methods > > > were > > > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > > > they > > > > > may > > > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without > knowing > > > more > > > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > > > teaching > > > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of > > affect > > > and > > > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > > > external > > > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > > > maintained > > > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > > > Either > > > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit > from > > > the > > > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to > articulate > > it > > > -- > > > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened > > concentration > > > to > > > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > > > anecdotal > > > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can > > be > > > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to > agent > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I > > take > > > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps > some > > > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as > > imputing > > > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) > of > > > that > > > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it > > is, > > > I > > > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > > > concretely > > > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and > hypothetically > > > > > assumed > > > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > > > perhaps > > > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > > > observations is > > > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject > and > > > its > > > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from > > various > > > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, > > environment-subject, > > > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > > > ideas > > > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is > > whether > > > the > > > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: > > Issue > > > 4 > > > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > > > Michael's > > > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still > available > > as > > > a > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login > or > > > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > > > selected > > > > > > > article > > > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > > > Change?". > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access > > for > > > a > > > > > > brief > > > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a > > Vygotskian > > > > > > notion > > > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > > > common > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > > > critiques > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the > > article > > > > > > brings > > > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is > open > > > > > access > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the > > coming > > > > > days, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to > be > > > shy > > > > > > > bringing > > > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique > > opportunity > > > we > > > > > > have > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy > may > > > live > > > > > on > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related > research/literature. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Dec 19 07:24:19 2017 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:24:19 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks to Peter Smagorinsky, here is a link to some pictures from our AERA 2013 session in San Francisco, dedicated to Vera's life, teaching and scholarship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy1s-Fs7ByE "What we have once enjoyed, we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes part of us.? -Helen Keller *Robert Lake* On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jay Lemke wrote: > Just now reading of Vera's passing. > > So sad she has left us, but so happy in remembering all my wonderful > conversations with her in so many places around the world. > > I learned a lot from her about the less visible and more implicit aspects > of creativity and collaboration and how to think with and about them. I > also learned about compassion, and about the challenges faced by even the > most brilliant women in a male-arrogant academia. People who never met her > can be grateful for her life and her work. For those who were lucky enough > to know her, we have been lucky indeed. > > JAY. > > > > Jay Lemke > Professor Emeritus > City University of New York > www.jaylemke.com > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > wrote: > > > Dear XMCA Family, > > > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > > experienced a stroke. > > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more information > and > > an obituary as > > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful contributions > > from so many of her friends, collaborators and students from the book > > mentioned above. > > > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > > *Robert Lake* > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From smago@uga.edu Tue Dec 19 07:49:04 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:49:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, tho I know I wasn't the photographer, only the one who assembled the batch into a slide show. But always happy to remember Vera and her legacy! -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:24 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away Dear All, Thanks to Peter Smagorinsky, here is a link to some pictures from our AERA 2013 session in San Francisco, dedicated to Vera's life, teaching and scholarship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy1s-Fs7ByE "What we have once enjoyed, we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes part of us.? -Helen Keller *Robert Lake* On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jay Lemke wrote: > Just now reading of Vera's passing. > > So sad she has left us, but so happy in remembering all my wonderful > conversations with her in so many places around the world. > > I learned a lot from her about the less visible and more implicit > aspects of creativity and collaboration and how to think with and > about them. I also learned about compassion, and about the challenges > faced by even the most brilliant women in a male-arrogant academia. > People who never met her can be grateful for her life and her work. > For those who were lucky enough to know her, we have been lucky indeed. > > JAY. > > > > Jay Lemke > Professor Emeritus > City University of New York > www.jaylemke.com > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > > Dear XMCA Family, > > > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > > experienced a stroke. > > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more > > information > and > > an obituary as > > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful > > contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and > > students from the book mentioned above. > > > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > > *Robert Lake* > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 19 10:35:43 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:35:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> , Message-ID: <1513708542949.62834@iped.uio.no> Huw, I am catching up and have not yet read the responses that follow the message below, but I wanted to stop by this entry to applaud your way of putting issues in such a positive (in the sense of looking forward to advance the argument rather than keeping arguing) and conciliatory way. I appreciate it very much, as well as I agree with the content, even if I can also see (as I am sure you do as well) that paying due attention and being clear about the lineage of concepts is also important. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Sent: 18 December 2017 11:04 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please correct me if I am misrepresenting him: Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. In this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they achieve what is claimed. Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant to his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other words, his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is to further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a v. strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which is basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant to the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not that something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it has yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) does not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may argue entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). I hope this helps! Best, Huw On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves on > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved aggressively > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's remark > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't believe > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules and > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. Wolff-Michael > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use Vygotsky's > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Huw, > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of quantity > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) where > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate continuously, > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the continued > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order emerges > > in the water movement. > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace into > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are of > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a stinking > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the other > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes through > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows this, > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that come > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no forces > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, including > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you that > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level of > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > whole world. > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us anywhere, > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will tell > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. You > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel Henry > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > originary body are invisible. > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not there > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is convinced > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > Marxist. > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so far. > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear creations". > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of facts, > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, 2010, > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as untenable. > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the right to > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > Michael > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > > Applied Cognitive Science > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > University of Victoria > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use > > of > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > seems > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do > > not > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > development > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > beyond > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not > > a > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > quality > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > project > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying > > the > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, > > but > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this > > can > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within > > the > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they > > may > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching > > > institution. > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > maintained > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). Either > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it -- > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > self-perpetuating > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to > > the > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > assumed > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > Michael's > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a > > > free > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected > > > > article > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > Change?". > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a > > > brief > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > notion > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common > > in > > > > the > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > Vygotsky's > > > > >> writings. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > critiques > > > > to > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > brings > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > access > > > > right > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > days, > > > > and > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy > > > > bringing > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we > > > have > > > > for > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live > > on > > > > in > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Dec 19 11:58:17 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:58:17 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at all. If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division of the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as yet another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing to do with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? research, in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to accept Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can provide only ?description.? I reject this proposal. There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive inquiry. I write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the theory of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the 'thought-constituting work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely cognitive matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact that escapes rational theorizing.? This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the implications of his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in history it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on human phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose legitimacy he sought to define.? Martin From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 13:03:53 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:03:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion In-Reply-To: <1513708542949.62834@iped.uio.no> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <1513708542949.62834@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: You're welcome, Alfredo. On 19 December 2017 at 18:35, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Huw, I am catching up and have not yet read the responses that follow the > message below, but I wanted to stop by this entry to applaud your way of > putting issues in such a positive (in the sense of looking forward to > advance the argument rather than keeping arguing) and conciliatory way. I > appreciate it very much, as well as I agree with the content, even if I can > also see (as I am sure you do as well) that paying due attention and being > clear about the lineage of concepts is also important. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: 18 December 2017 11:04 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 > article for discussion > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please > correct me if I am misrepresenting him: > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. In > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they > achieve what is claimed. > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts. > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant to > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other words, > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is to > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a v. > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which is > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic. > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant > to > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not that > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists) > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient. > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it has > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) does > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may argue > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1). > > I hope this helps! > > Best, > Huw > > > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's. > > > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern. > > > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse, > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves > on > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved > aggressively > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern. > > > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's > remark > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't > believe > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules > and > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God. > Wolff-Michael > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use > Vygotsky's > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern. > > > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth < > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Huw, > > > > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied mathematician, I > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of > quantity > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them) > where > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between two > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate > continuously, > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the > continued > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order > emerges > > > in the water movement. > > > > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace > into > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments are > of > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a > stinking > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the > other > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes > through > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows > this, > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change that > come > > > with continuous increases in some variable. > > > > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no > forces > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it, > including > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you > that > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system. > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit = word-meaning), > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest level > of > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing the > > > whole world. > > > > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us > anywhere, > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition, multiplication, > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists will > tell > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of substance. > You > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel > Henry > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the first, > > > originary body are invisible. > > > > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on the > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not > there > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is > convinced > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not > > > Marxist. > > > > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went so > far. > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear > creations". > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of > facts, > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva, > 2010, > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as > untenable. > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the > right to > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -------------------- > > > Applied Cognitive Science > > > MacLaurin Building A567 > > > University of Victoria > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > > > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > > > > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels > use > > > of > > > > "leading activity". > > > > > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus > > > seems > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that > do > > > not > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By > > > development > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity. > > > > > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful > > > beyond > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of > one > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality > (not > > > a > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original > expression > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new > > > quality > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to > > > project > > > > a cause-effect model). > > > > > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing > his/her > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without > identifying > > > the > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I > think > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than > what > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show > this > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger > materialistically, > > > but > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how > this > > > can > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do > not > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve > this > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also > within > > > the > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods > were > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, > they > > > may > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing > more > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a > teaching > > > > institution. > > > > > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect > and > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed > external > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be > > > maintained > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult). > Either > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from > the > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it > -- > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration > to > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide > anecdotal > > > > examples if you want them). > > > > > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the > > > self-perpetuating > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent > to > > > the > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of > that > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, > I > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this > concretely > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically > > > assumed > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time. > > > > > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that > perhaps > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to > observations is > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and > its > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject, > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your > ideas > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether > the > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Andy, > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue > 4 > > > > > article for discussion > > > > > > > > > > attached, Bill > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > > > > hi Alfredo, > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is > > > Michael's > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as > a > > > > free > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or > > > > purchase. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested in this discussion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bill Kerr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steemed xmca'ers, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a > selected > > > > > article > > > > > >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by > > > > > Wolff-Michael > > > > > >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental > > > Change?". > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for > a > > > > brief > > > > > >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian > > > > notion > > > > > >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so > common > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in > > > Vygotsky's > > > > > >> writings. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and > > > critiques > > > > > to > > > > > >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article > > > > brings > > > > > >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open > > > access > > > > > right > > > > > >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The whole issue is published here: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming > > > days, > > > > > and > > > > > >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be > shy > > > > > bringing > > > > > >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity > we > > > > have > > > > > for > > > > > >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may > live > > > on > > > > > in > > > > > >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Dec 19 13:05:01 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera's Legacy Page Message-ID: Hi XMCAts, I thought I would post a link to Vera's page at Legacy.com, which will be online for the next year, until 12/8/2018. http://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/santafenewmexican/veronka-john-steiner-condolences/187474705 Feel free to read or post or both! I thought the list would like to enjoy this page. Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 13:09:37 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 06:09:37 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings should look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't appear to be on Martin's website any more either. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: > > For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected > both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the > context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking > about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology > on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at > all. > > If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject > Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division of > the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as yet > another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing to do > with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? research, > in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to accept > Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? > whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can provide > only ?description.? I reject this proposal. > > There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive inquiry. I > write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the theory > of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... > Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the 'thought-constituting > work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely cognitive > matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact that > escapes rational theorizing.? > > This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: > > ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences > are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the implications of > his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always > historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the > historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations > that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in history > it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on human > phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to > achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity > that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid > foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose legitimacy > he sought to define.? > > Martin > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 19 13:14:54 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:14:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera's Legacy Page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1513718094000.72696@iped.uio.no> Thanks for sharing, Annalisa. In case others have the same problems I had following the links, here is the one that worked for me: http://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/santafenewmexican/veronka-john-steiner-condolences/187474705 Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 19 December 2017 22:05 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera's Legacy Page Hi XMCAts, I thought I would post a link to Vera's page at Legacy.com, which will be online for the next year, until 12/8/2018. http://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/santafenewmexican/veronka-john-steiner-condolences/187474705 Feel free to read or post or both! I thought the list would like to enjoy this page. Kind regards, Annalisa From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Dec 19 13:14:54 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:14:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera's Legacy Page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1513718094000.72696@iped.uio.no> Thanks for sharing, Annalisa. In case others have the same problems I had following the links, here is the one that worked for me: http://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/santafenewmexican/veronka-john-steiner-condolences/187474705 Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 19 December 2017 22:05 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Vera's Legacy Page Hi XMCAts, I thought I would post a link to Vera's page at Legacy.com, which will be online for the next year, until 12/8/2018. http://www.legacy.com/guestbooks/santafenewmexican/veronka-john-steiner-condolences/187474705 Feel free to read or post or both! I thought the list would like to enjoy this page. Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Dec 19 13:14:32 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi, Thanks for posting the link, Robert, and Peter too, for his slideshow creation! It's wonderful and comforting to see Vera being honored. I wish I could have gone to that event and heard what everyone had to say. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 8:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away Thanks, tho I know I wasn't the photographer, only the one who assembled the batch into a slide show. But always happy to remember Vera and her legacy! -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:24 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vera John-Steiner has passed away Dear All, Thanks to Peter Smagorinsky, here is a link to some pictures from our AERA 2013 session in San Francisco, dedicated to Vera's life, teaching and scholarship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy1s-Fs7ByE "What we have once enjoyed, we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes part of us.? -Helen Keller *Robert Lake* On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jay Lemke wrote: > Just now reading of Vera's passing. > > So sad she has left us, but so happy in remembering all my wonderful > conversations with her in so many places around the world. > > I learned a lot from her about the less visible and more implicit > aspects of creativity and collaboration and how to think with and > about them. I also learned about compassion, and about the challenges > faced by even the most brilliant women in a male-arrogant academia. > People who never met her can be grateful for her life and her work. > For those who were lucky enough to know her, we have been lucky indeed. > > JAY. > > > > Jay Lemke > Professor Emeritus > City University of New York > www.jaylemke.com > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > > Dear XMCA Family, > > > > Our beloved Vera John-Steiner died last night very shortly after she > > experienced a stroke. > > She had posted to this site on 11/25/17. We will send more > > information > and > > an obituary as > > it becomes available. Attached is the last "letter" from > > *Constructing a Community of Thought:Letters on the Scholarship, > Teaching, > > and Mentoring of Vera John-Steiner *(2013). > > In this piece, we sought to synthesize all the wonderful > > contributions from so many of her friends, collaborators and > > students from the book mentioned above. > > > > Warmest condolences to her family and to all her knew and loved her. > > *Robert Lake* > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Co-editor of *Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,* vol.39, 2017 Special issue: Maxine Greene and the Pedagogy of Social Imagination: An Intellectual Genealogy. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/gred20/39/1 Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Dec 19 13:15:44 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:15:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:09 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's path to > knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, > evolving social world? > > Thank you. > > James Hi James, Much has been said about this question in this discussion group over the years! Here are some notes I made some time ago. I am sure that others will jump in! :) Vygotsky viewed methodology as central to the kind of psychology he wanted to create: ?the methodology,? he wrote, ?will be the first step forward" (2004 [1926-7], p. 242). And ?Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, to jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological science right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on it.? There were three central aspects to the methodology that Vygotsky envisioned for his ?general psychology?: analysis, genetic inquiry, and experimentation. They amount to a conception of qualitative research that is significantly different from much of what goes by that name today. One reason for this is that methodology for Vygotsky was not merely technique but ?the theory of scientific method? in which ?practice and philosophy are united.? In other words it was a logic of inquiry, a paradigm which involved assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how we can know (epistemology). The ?analytical method? was of central importance to Vygotsky, and he rescued it from phenomenology and from so-called Marxist psychologies of his time. It is the study of the internal relations of a complex whole. For example, water should not be analyzed into its elements but studied as a molecule in its qualitatively different forms: ice, liquid, vapor, etc. (1987/1934). Analysis is ?the highest form of induction.? It requires no repetition, for it is the study of a particular case for the general properties which are realized in it. Analysis is to ?perceive the general in the particular;? the particular phenomenon is maximally abstracted from its specific conditions. For example, Pavlov?s study of salivation in dogs was an analysis of reflexes in general, in animals in general. Vygotsky?s model here was Marx?s analysis of the commodity, a form with internal contradictions, through the selection of a unit of analysis, a ?cell?: the commodity. Analysis requires the partition of a complex whole into its aspects. In other words analysis is a form of case study, idiographic and holistic. Its aim is to discern general laws; objective tendencies which underlie the manifold appearances. Its products are not essences but ?generalizations which have boundaries and degrees.? The second aspect is genetic inquiry. Vygotsky wrote that he agreed with Marx that ?the only science is history.? History meant ?two things: a general dialectical approach to things; in this sense, everything has its history,? and, second, human history: ?the uniqueness of the human mind lies in the fact that history and evolution are united (synthesis) in it? (1986). Genetic inquiry requires tracing the history of the development of a phenomenon, the path it has followed, to identify its underlying objective tendencies. It attends to the process of sublation in which earlier forms are both overcome and preserved. Furthermore, it is an inquiry that is oriented by practical concerns, concerned to facilitate the leap from necessity to freedom by mastery of the tendencies that are identified. A genetic account is a description, but also provides an explanation. It weaves together ontogenesis (the process of ?individualization?), history (cultural evolution), phylogenesis (biological evolution), and microgenesis (experiment). Indeed, Vygotsky's methodology includes a central place for experimentation: what he called ?Traps for Nature.? But this was not experimentation in the sense of manipulation of variables, standardization of procedure, with the researcher as detached observer. On the contrary, for Vygotsky an experiment was a collaboration between researcher and participant as they together established the conditions for the possibility of the phenomenon of interest (e.g. the famous blocks task). An experiment is a form of analysis, it is ?an analysis in action, as each analysis is an experiment in thought? (2004/1926-7). The unusual character of this view of experimentation is revealed by Vygotsky's statement that ?every lyrical poem is an experiment.? In Vygotsky?s view the artificiality of an experiment is a merit, not a weakness. It allows us to reveal a historical process in abstracted form. Furthermore, an experiment provides a historical analysis, through the opportunity to study the microgenesis of a phenomenon. For Vygotsky, historical methods and logical analysis (the logic of an experimental design) are not opposed, because logic is sedimented history. Martin From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Dec 19 13:17:20 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:17:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings! :) M > On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings should > look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 > > Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For > some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't > appear to be on Martin's website any more either. > > > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg > kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected >> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the >> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking >> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology >> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at >> all. >> >> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject >> Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division of >> the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as yet >> another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing to do >> with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? research, >> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to accept >> Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? >> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can provide >> only ?description.? I reject this proposal. >> >> There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive inquiry. I >> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the theory >> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... >> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the 'thought-constituting >> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely cognitive >> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact that >> escapes rational theorizing.? >> >> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: >> >> ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences >> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the implications of >> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always >> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the >> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations >> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in history >> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on human >> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to >> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity >> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid >> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose legitimacy >> he sought to define.? >> >> Martin >> >> From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Dec 19 14:16:52 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:16:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2842E6A1-1858-474A-B6D6-CF9A61615738@uniandes.edu.co> Ho ho ho! > > Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings! :) > > M > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings should >> look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 >> >> Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For >> some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't >> appear to be on Martin's website any more either. >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >> >> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer >> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg >> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected >>> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the >>> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking >>> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology >>> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at >>> all. >>> >>> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject >>> Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division of >>> the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as yet >>> another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing to do >>> with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? research, >>> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to accept >>> Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? >>> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can provide >>> only ?description.? I reject this proposal. >>> >>> There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive inquiry. I >>> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the theory >>> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... >>> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the 'thought-constituting >>> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely cognitive >>> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact that >>> escapes rational theorizing.? >>> >>> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: >>> >>> ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences >>> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the implications of >>> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always >>> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the >>> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations >>> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in history >>> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on human >>> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to >>> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity >>> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid >>> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose legitimacy >>> he sought to define.? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Packer 2008 Is Vygotsky relevant Vygotsky's Marxi.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 143517 bytes Desc: Packer 2008 Is Vygotsky relevant Vygotsky's Marxi.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171219/ac8fd8c6/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Dec 19 16:49:32 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:49:32 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <2842E6A1-1858-474A-B6D6-CF9A61615738@uniandes.edu.co> References: <2842E6A1-1858-474A-B6D6-CF9A61615738@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: excellent journal, too. :-) mike On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Ho ho ho! > > > > > Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings! :) > > > > M > > > > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >> > >> Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings > should > >> look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 > >> > >> Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". > For > >> some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't > >> appear to be on Martin's website any more either. > >> > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > >> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > >> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > >> > >> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg >>> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected > >>> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the > >>> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's > talking > >>> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" > psychology > >>> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research > at > >>> all. > >>> > >>> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject > >>> Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s > division of > >>> the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as > yet > >>> another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing > to do > >>> with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? > research, > >>> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to > accept > >>> Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? > >>> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can > provide > >>> only ?description.? I reject this proposal. > >>> > >>> There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive > inquiry. I > >>> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the > theory > >>> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... > >>> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the > 'thought-constituting > >>> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely > cognitive > >>> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact > that > >>> escapes rational theorizing.? > >>> > >>> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: > >>> > >>> ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences > >>> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the > implications of > >>> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always > >>> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the > >>> historical character of our experience wanted to provide > interpretations > >>> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in > history > >>> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on > human > >>> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to > >>> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an > activity > >>> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid > >>> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose > legitimacy > >>> he sought to define.? > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> > > > > > > -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:58:08 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 06:58:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. James On 19 December 2017 at 21:17, Martin John Packer wrote: > Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings! :) > > M > > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings > should > > look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 > > > > Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For > > some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't > > appear to be on Martin's website any more either. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg >> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected > >> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the > >> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's > talking > >> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" > psychology > >> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research > at > >> all. > >> > >> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject > >> Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division > of > >> the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as > yet > >> another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing > to do > >> with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? > research, > >> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to > accept > >> Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? > >> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can > provide > >> only ?description.? I reject this proposal. > >> > >> There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive > inquiry. I > >> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the > theory > >> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... > >> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the > 'thought-constituting > >> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely > cognitive > >> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact > that > >> escapes rational theorizing.? > >> > >> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: > >> > >> ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences > >> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the > implications of > >> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always > >> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the > >> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations > >> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in > history > >> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on > human > >> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to > >> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity > >> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid > >> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose > legitimacy > >> he sought to define.? > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From ablunden@mira.net Tue Dec 19 23:03:25 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:03:25 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: attached ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/12/2017 5:58 PM, James Ma wrote: > Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is > Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. > James > > On 19 December 2017 at 21:17, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings! :) >> >> M >> >>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings >> should >>> look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?" >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607 >>> >>> Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For >>> some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't >>> appear to be on Martin's website any more either. >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, >>> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A >>> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' >>> >>> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer < >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co >>>> wrote: >>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg > >>> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected >>>> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the >>>> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's >> talking >>>> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" >> psychology >>>> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research >> at >>>> all. >>>> >>>> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject >>>> Dilthey?s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey?s division >> of >>>> the natural sciences and the human sciences ? sciences of spirit ? as >> yet >>>> another version of dualism. It?s not quite true that this has nothing >> to do >>>> with contemporary conceptions of ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? >> research, >>>> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to >> accept >>>> Dilthey?s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ?explanation? >>>> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can >> provide >>>> only ?description.? I reject this proposal. >>>> >>>> There are other problems with Dilthey?s version of interpretive >> inquiry. I >>>> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the >> theory >>>> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works.... >>>> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the >> 'thought-constituting >>>> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely >> cognitive >>>> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact >> that >>>> escapes rational theorizing.? >>>> >>>> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand: >>>> >>>> ?[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences >>>> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the >> implications of >>>> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always >>>> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the >>>> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations >>>> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in >> history >>>> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on >> human >>>> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to >>>> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity >>>> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid >>>> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose >> legitimacy >>>> he sought to define.? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >> >> > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Is Vygotsky Relevant Vygotsky s Marxist Psychology.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 118848 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171220/837af9e6/attachment.pdf From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Dec 20 04:49:28 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was attached to my ?Ho ho ho? message? Martin > On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > attached > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/12/2017 5:58 PM, James Ma wrote: >> Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is >> Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. >> James >> >> From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Dec 20 05:31:04 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:31:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Thank you so much, Martin. On 19 December 2017 at 21:15, Martin John Packer wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:09 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's path > to > > knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, > > evolving social world? > > > > Thank you. > > > > James > > Hi James, > > Much has been said about this question in this discussion group over the > years! Here are some notes I made some time ago. I am sure that others will > jump in! :) > > Vygotsky viewed methodology as central to the kind of psychology he wanted > to create: ?the methodology,? he wrote, ?will be the first step forward" > (2004 [1926-7], p. 242). And ?Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, to > jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological science > right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on it.? > > There were three central aspects to the methodology that Vygotsky > envisioned for his ?general psychology?: analysis, genetic inquiry, and > experimentation. They amount to a conception of qualitative research that > is significantly different from much of what goes by that name today. One > reason for this is that methodology for Vygotsky was not merely technique > but ?the theory of scientific method? in which ?practice and philosophy are > united.? In other words it was a logic of inquiry, a paradigm which > involved assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how we can know > (epistemology). > > The ?analytical method? was of central importance to Vygotsky, and he > rescued it from phenomenology and from so-called Marxist psychologies of > his time. It is the study of the internal relations of a complex whole. For > example, water should not be analyzed into its elements but studied as a > molecule in its qualitatively different forms: ice, liquid, vapor, etc. > (1987/1934). Analysis is ?the highest form of induction.? It requires no > repetition, for it is the study of a particular case for the general > properties which are realized in it. Analysis is to ?perceive the general > in the particular;? the particular phenomenon is maximally abstracted from > its specific conditions. For example, Pavlov?s study of salivation in dogs > was an analysis of reflexes in general, in animals in general. Vygotsky?s > model here was Marx?s analysis of the commodity, a form with internal > contradictions, through the selection of a unit of analysis, a ?cell?: the > commodity. Analysis requires the partition of a complex whole into its > aspects. In other words analysis is a form of case study, idiographic and > holistic. Its aim is to discern general laws; objective tendencies which > underlie the manifold appearances. Its products are not essences but > ?generalizations which have boundaries and degrees.? > > The second aspect is genetic inquiry. Vygotsky wrote that he agreed with > Marx that ?the only science is history.? History meant ?two things: a > general dialectical approach to things; in this sense, everything has its > history,? and, second, human history: ?the uniqueness of the human mind > lies in the fact that history and evolution are united (synthesis) in it? > (1986). Genetic inquiry requires tracing the history of the development of > a phenomenon, the path it has followed, to identify its underlying > objective tendencies. It attends to the process of sublation in which > earlier forms are both overcome and preserved. Furthermore, it is an > inquiry that is oriented by practical concerns, concerned to facilitate the > leap from necessity to freedom by mastery of the tendencies that are > identified. A genetic account is a description, but also provides an > explanation. It weaves together ontogenesis (the process of > ?individualization?), history (cultural evolution), phylogenesis > (biological evolution), and microgenesis (experiment). > > Indeed, Vygotsky's methodology includes a central place for > experimentation: what he called ?Traps for Nature.? But this was not > experimentation in the sense of manipulation of variables, standardization > of procedure, with the researcher as detached observer. On the contrary, > for Vygotsky an experiment was a collaboration between researcher and > participant as they together established the conditions for the possibility > of the phenomenon of interest (e.g. the famous blocks task). An experiment > is a form of analysis, it is ?an analysis in action, as each analysis is an > experiment in thought? (2004/1926-7). The unusual character of this view of > experimentation is revealed by Vygotsky's statement that ?every lyrical > poem is an experiment.? In Vygotsky?s view the artificiality of an > experiment is a merit, not a weakness. It allows us to reveal a historical > process in abstracted form. Furthermore, an experiment provides a > historical analysis, through the opportunity to study the microgenesis of a > phenomenon. For Vygotsky, historical methods and logical analysis (the > logic of an experimental design) are not opposed, because logic is > sedimented history. > > Martin > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Dec 20 05:35:51 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:35:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks, Martin. James On 20 December 2017 at 12:49, Martin John Packer wrote: > It was attached to my ?Ho ho ho? message? > > Martin > > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > attached > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 20/12/2017 5:58 PM, James Ma wrote: > >> Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is > >> Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. > >> James > >> > >> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 20 13:18:32 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:18:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1513804712568.78251@iped.uio.no> Given how trending and contested the issue on Vygotsky's Marxism is these days, this is a real Christmas treat, Martin, thanks! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of James Ma Sent: 20 December 2017 14:35 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Many thanks, Martin. James On 20 December 2017 at 12:49, Martin John Packer wrote: > It was attached to my ?Ho ho ho? message? > > Martin > > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > attached > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 20/12/2017 5:58 PM, James Ma wrote: > >> Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is > >> Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. > >> James > >> > >> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Dec 20 13:27:54 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:27:54 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: I was teaching a course in research methods back in 2012, and as a way of trying to keep inter-necine tension over who would supervise whom to a minimum, I did propose that one professor would teach and then supervise the more prestigious quantitative studies and I would teach and supervise the less prestigious qualitative studies (this worked out about as well as you can imagine....). While I was trying to make this solution work, I got Martin's book on qualitative research and read it, but what Martin says about it is quite correct: it's not a "how to" book. Compare with Keith Richards, "Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL" (Palgrave Macmillan) or Johnny Saldana "Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers" (Sage). Richards begins his collection of piecemeal accounts with horrifying "how not to" vignettes of how he victimized his students for "misapplying" Conversation Analysis: this is how not to teach ideas to students. Saldana is a little better, but the closest he gets to good examples of how to be continent, object-specific, and concrete is advice like "reflect on analytic codings". Show me, Professor! Martin's article isn't a demonstration of qualitative methods: it's on a level of philosophical abstraction and historical specificity that a lot of my (ex-)students would find hard to follow (e.g. the foray into the difference between Bekhterev and Dilthey, mechanists and Deborinites). I once tried rewriting it, using Vygotsky's five stages to describe the expansion of the ZPD into a "bull frog that would be as big as a bull". That didn't work either--students are an endless treasure trove of misconceptions and misunderstandings. But Martin's article does have the opposition between vulgar materialism and "interpretative" psychology we are talking about. And it has more. It's a pre-emptive reply to the "Revisionist Revolution". At the beginning of 2016, I wrote a something I now regret a little about van der Veer and Yasinitsky's "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies", in which I tried to summarize the book as seven things you always thought about Vygotsky which turn out to be true after all. I think my posting captured the sensationalist tone of the "Revisionists", but it missed something much more important--what Sasha refers to as the right-Vygotskyan attempt to rescue Vygotsky from Marx. Martin really manages to rescue Vygotsky from the rescuers. I don't know if I would try to reduce Vygotsky's "methods" to three as Martin does. I know that Vygotsky himself does this in various places, but he keeps coming up with three different methods. In Chapter Two of Pedology of the Adolescent. Vygotsky first says that pedology borrows methods from other, neighboring sciences, but transforms these by giving them a new holistic object of study: not the child, but the age period of the child. He lists: A) Observation in a naturalistic setting (e.g. by parents and by teachers). This has been widely used in the USSR by Molozhavy and by Basov (2-47). Vygotsky points out that this method is more objective and more reliable than unscientific reminiscences or imaginary reconstructions of childhood (2-46). But unlike reminiscences and reconstructions, ?vital facts? cannot be produced on demand: the naturalism of the observation prevents the researcher from inducing them. B) Experiments (e.g. the Vygotsky blocks test). Since previous psychological experimentation depended on self-observation, it had been considered that experiments were not applicable to children. But Vygotsky points out that well designed experiments (e.g. the functional method of dual stimulation) do not require self-observation and allow researchers to observe stages that simply disappear in naturalistic behaviour (e.g. the formation of the choice reaction) (2-50~2-51). C) Natural Experiments (e.g. experimental homework, experimental household tasks). This is a synthesis of A) and B), something which is an experiment for the researcher but not for the research subject (2-52~2-54). D) Clinical Examinations and Tests (e.g. Piaget?s system of one on one interviews to determine the child?s conception of reality, IQ testing, etc.). This is widely used in defectology (2-55~2-59). E) Testing (e.g. Cattell, Wechsler, and Binet?s ?personality tests?). Vygotsky points out three different purposes for mass testing (mental giftedness, monitoring development, and school achievement) and two different types of result (numerical and qualitative). (2-60~2-64) F) Methode d?inquete (surveying). This is the use of questionnaires (2-65~2-66). H) Anthropometrics, the mass examination of a whole population (2-67). G) Somatoscopy, the clinical examination of single individuals over time (2-67) H) Study of the Social Environment, the study of the socio-economic status, the class environment, and the living conditions of children favoured by A.B. Zalkind (2-68~2-69). I) Document Collection, amassing a data base of child artworks, diary entries, and other documents. (2-69). J) Upbringing and Teaching Studies, presumably the kind of pencil-and-paper studies that the Sterns did on their three children, or the kind of classroom studies used in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech. (2-70). Then Vygotsky lists three methods which are really specific to pedology: genetic, comparative, and "synthetic" method. In HDHMF, on the other hand, he has a chapter on "Research Methods" which he then differentiates into THREE chapters ("analysis", "genesis" and "structure"). And then the analysis chapter speaks of conditional-genetic analysis and experimental-genetic and even causal-dynamic analysis (and criticizes, phenomenology--something that Martin doesn't quite agree with). But the main thing Vygotsky does in this chapter is warn against: a) trying to distinguish analyzing a thing and analyzing a process b) trying to distinguish description and explanation c) beginning an analysis of a process with the product rather than with the prehistory I guess I think of the genetic, comparative, and synthetic method as three ways rescuing ourselves from these. Genesis analyzes things as if they were processes and processes as if they were things without ever forgetting that neither is reducible to the other. Comparison is a way of arriving a description that explains and explanation that describes. And what Vygotsky really means by the "synthetic" method is what we now call triangulation, but what Marx called the anatomy of the ape:description and explanation of both process and product with the prehistory firmly in mind, but also with a clear sense that the present only feels pre-determined: it's really just as much the outcome of free will and chance as the future still is. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, James Ma wrote: > Thank you so much, Martin. > > > On 19 December 2017 at 21:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:09 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's > path > > to > > > knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, > > > evolving social world? > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > James > > > > Hi James, > > > > Much has been said about this question in this discussion group over the > > years! Here are some notes I made some time ago. I am sure that others > will > > jump in! :) > > > > Vygotsky viewed methodology as central to the kind of psychology he > wanted > > to create: ?the methodology,? he wrote, ?will be the first step forward" > > (2004 [1926-7], p. 242). And ?Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, > to > > jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological > science > > right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on > it.? > > > > There were three central aspects to the methodology that Vygotsky > > envisioned for his ?general psychology?: analysis, genetic inquiry, and > > experimentation. They amount to a conception of qualitative research that > > is significantly different from much of what goes by that name today. One > > reason for this is that methodology for Vygotsky was not merely technique > > but ?the theory of scientific method? in which ?practice and philosophy > are > > united.? In other words it was a logic of inquiry, a paradigm which > > involved assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how we can know > > (epistemology). > > > > The ?analytical method? was of central importance to Vygotsky, and he > > rescued it from phenomenology and from so-called Marxist psychologies of > > his time. It is the study of the internal relations of a complex whole. > For > > example, water should not be analyzed into its elements but studied as a > > molecule in its qualitatively different forms: ice, liquid, vapor, etc. > > (1987/1934). Analysis is ?the highest form of induction.? It requires no > > repetition, for it is the study of a particular case for the general > > properties which are realized in it. Analysis is to ?perceive the general > > in the particular;? the particular phenomenon is maximally abstracted > from > > its specific conditions. For example, Pavlov?s study of salivation in > dogs > > was an analysis of reflexes in general, in animals in general. Vygotsky?s > > model here was Marx?s analysis of the commodity, a form with internal > > contradictions, through the selection of a unit of analysis, a ?cell?: > the > > commodity. Analysis requires the partition of a complex whole into its > > aspects. In other words analysis is a form of case study, idiographic and > > holistic. Its aim is to discern general laws; objective tendencies which > > underlie the manifold appearances. Its products are not essences but > > ?generalizations which have boundaries and degrees.? > > > > The second aspect is genetic inquiry. Vygotsky wrote that he agreed with > > Marx that ?the only science is history.? History meant ?two things: a > > general dialectical approach to things; in this sense, everything has its > > history,? and, second, human history: ?the uniqueness of the human mind > > lies in the fact that history and evolution are united (synthesis) in it? > > (1986). Genetic inquiry requires tracing the history of the development > of > > a phenomenon, the path it has followed, to identify its underlying > > objective tendencies. It attends to the process of sublation in which > > earlier forms are both overcome and preserved. Furthermore, it is an > > inquiry that is oriented by practical concerns, concerned to facilitate > the > > leap from necessity to freedom by mastery of the tendencies that are > > identified. A genetic account is a description, but also provides an > > explanation. It weaves together ontogenesis (the process of > > ?individualization?), history (cultural evolution), phylogenesis > > (biological evolution), and microgenesis (experiment). > > > > Indeed, Vygotsky's methodology includes a central place for > > experimentation: what he called ?Traps for Nature.? But this was not > > experimentation in the sense of manipulation of variables, > standardization > > of procedure, with the researcher as detached observer. On the contrary, > > for Vygotsky an experiment was a collaboration between researcher and > > participant as they together established the conditions for the > possibility > > of the phenomenon of interest (e.g. the famous blocks task). An > experiment > > is a form of analysis, it is ?an analysis in action, as each analysis is > an > > experiment in thought? (2004/1926-7). The unusual character of this view > of > > experimentation is revealed by Vygotsky's statement that ?every lyrical > > poem is an experiment.? In Vygotsky?s view the artificiality of an > > experiment is a merit, not a weakness. It allows us to reveal a > historical > > process in abstracted form. Furthermore, an experiment provides a > > historical analysis, through the opportunity to study the microgenesis > of a > > phenomenon. For Vygotsky, historical methods and logical analysis (the > > logic of an experimental design) are not opposed, because logic is > > sedimented history. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 20 13:33:12 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:33:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <1513805592605.14535@iped.uio.no> Hi Tuim, looking at the thread, it seems that your ideas are not far from the general consensus. Happy to read you! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Tuim Viotto Sent: 18 December 2017 05:02 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed DEARS FRIENDS FROM XMCA, I WAS THINKING ABOUT DIALECTIC HISTORICAL MATERIALISM METHOD FROM MARX AND ENGELS; METHOD WHICH WAS ASSUMED BY VYGOTSKY AND HIS FRIENDS FROM HIST CULTURAL THEORY (LEONTIEV, LURIA, ELKONIN AND OTHERS) IN RUSSIA AND I REALIZED THIS METHOD OF RESEARCH WORKS WITH QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATAS IN UNIT, I MEAN, DO NOT SEPARATE IT...IN FACT INBODIED IT, THAT MEANS, IF WE WORK WITH HIST DIALECTIC MATERIALISM METHOD, AS VYGOTSKY DID, WE DONT NEED TO SEPARATE QUANTI OR QUALI, BECAUSE IT IS UNDERSTAND AS UNIT BY THE METHOD ITSELF. WOULD BE WRONG THIS IDEAS? JUST TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME THEORECTICAL IDEAS ABOUT DIALECTICAL RESEARCH METHODS!!! BEST I.A. TUIM VIOTTO FILHO UNESP UNIVERSITY PP/SP/BRAZIL Em 17 de dez de 2017 23:41, "Wolff-Michael Roth" < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> escreveu: > Hi Martin, > the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative > researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of > research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of > statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are > distinct from observations in ethnographic research. > > Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and > mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S. > scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the > distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the > book: > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational > research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY: > Routledge. > > Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the > first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize > research. > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education > research: Why criteria for research generalization should include > population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College > Record, 116(5), 1?28 > Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into > qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23. > > You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology" > (quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" > (qualitative?!). > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Applied Cognitive Science > MacLaurin Building A567 > University of Victoria > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the- > mathematics-of-mathematics/>* > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > Hi Huw, > > > > In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels > > ?quantitative? and ?qualitative? are somewhat misleading; the issues at > > stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not > > one uses numbers. > > > > The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists? > > attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for > > psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ?gold > > standard? for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one > seeks a > > causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by > > defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This > > approach is what has come to be called ?quantitative? research, and it is > > what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that > > assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations > are > > constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: > > they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. > And > > it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always > > involves theory and interpretation. > > > > I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I > > studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in > > psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. > But > > understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something > > more than this. My book explores the ?what more?? > > > > Martin > > > > > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your > > > perspective, QR avoids defining it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Huw > > > > > > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Helen, > > >> > > >> It?s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of > > >> qualitative research ? phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - > > and > > >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic > > fieldwork, > > >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your > > class. > > >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, > > which > > >> I have taught many times. In case it?s useful I?ve attached the > syllabus > > >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You?ll see I > assigned > > >> only selected chapters from the first edition. > > >> > > >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends! > :) > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Martin, I?ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science > > >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi > > Minh > > >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be > used > > >> for undergraduates? > > >>> > > >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions > > so > > >> the sites of their research will be workplaces. > > >>> > > >>> H > > >>> > > >>> Helena Worthen > > >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > >>> skype: helena.worthen1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer < > > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just > > >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of > > Qualitative > > >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one! :) > > >>>> > > >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of > qualitative > > >> research ? that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing > > people?s > > >> subjective experience ? is mistaken. I propose that in fact > qualitative > > >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms > > of > > >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human > > beings > > >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are > > >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the > > >> ?ontological complicity? that people have with the social reality in > > which > > >> they live, and the ?constitution? in which specific ways of being > human > > are > > >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research ? and in the book I > > focus > > >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field > > work > > >> ? can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific > > study > > >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a > matter > > of > > >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding. > > >>>> > > >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of > > >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- > > think > > >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter > 1. > > >> Discussion of Bruno Latour?s work has been included in several > chapters: > > >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network > > theory, > > >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence. > > >>>> > > >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case > study > > >> the research conducted by L?ic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago. > > >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar > > terms > > >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic > > >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while > his > > >> interviews illustrated how the boxer?s ontological complicity with > this > > >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant > > helps us > > >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer?s way of > > human > > >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of > > >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in > which > > >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can > better > > >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my > > >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both > exciting > > and > > >> important. > > >>>> > > >>>> CUP: > > >>>> > >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science- > > >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501> > > >>>> > > >>>> Amazon: > > >>>> > >> qs&keywords=9781108417129> > > >>>> > > >>>> Facebook author?s page: > > >>>> > >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal> > > >>>> > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Dec 20 14:09:09 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:09:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie In-Reply-To: <1513804712568.78251@iped.uio.no> References: <1513804712568.78251@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <62F044FF-7CFF-4B76-8428-DAE2D7F26C03@uniandes.edu.co> And a Hanukkah gift :) Martin On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Given how trending and contested the issue on Vygotsky's Marxism is these days, this is a real Christmas treat, Martin, thanks! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of James Ma > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:35 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Many thanks, Martin. James On 20 December 2017 at 12:49, Martin John Packer > wrote: It was attached to my ?Ho ho ho? message? Martin On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: attached ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/12/2017 5:58 PM, James Ma wrote: Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks. James Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Dec 20 14:21:14 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:21:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: I too have co-taught a research methods class - a two-semester course, at U Mich School of Education. A description of the course has been sitting for almost 20 years on an abandoned web page. It focuses largely on what was my responsibility, the interpretive component (less prestigious for sure, but more intriguing for some students), but contains quite a lot of detail and supporting materials (syllabi and handouts). I?m sure it?s now somewhat out of date, but perhaps it may be of some use to someone? And thanks, David, for your kind comments. :) Martin On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:27 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: I was teaching a course in research methods back in 2012, and as a way of trying to keep inter-necine tension over who would supervise whom to a minimum, I did propose that one professor would teach and then supervise the more prestigious quantitative studies and I would teach and supervise the less prestigious qualitative studies (this worked out about as well as you can imagine....). While I was trying to make this solution work, I got Martin's book on qualitative research and read it, but what Martin says about it is quite correct: it's not a "how to" book. Compare with Keith Richards, "Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL" (Palgrave Macmillan) or Johnny Saldana "Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers" (Sage). Richards begins his collection of piecemeal accounts with horrifying "how not to" vignettes of how he victimized his students for "misapplying" Conversation Analysis: this is how not to teach ideas to students. Saldana is a little better, but the closest he gets to good examples of how to be continent, object-specific, and concrete is advice like "reflect on analytic codings". Show me, Professor! Martin's article isn't a demonstration of qualitative methods: it's on a level of philosophical abstraction and historical specificity that a lot of my (ex-)students would find hard to follow (e.g. the foray into the difference between Bekhterev and Dilthey, mechanists and Deborinites). I once tried rewriting it, using Vygotsky's five stages to describe the expansion of the ZPD into a "bull frog that would be as big as a bull". That didn't work either--students are an endless treasure trove of misconceptions and misunderstandings. But Martin's article does have the opposition between vulgar materialism and "interpretative" psychology we are talking about. And it has more. It's a pre-emptive reply to the "Revisionist Revolution". At the beginning of 2016, I wrote a something I now regret a little about van der Veer and Yasinitsky's "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies", in which I tried to summarize the book as seven things you always thought about Vygotsky which turn out to be true after all. I think my posting captured the sensationalist tone of the "Revisionists", but it missed something much more important--what Sasha refers to as the right-Vygotskyan attempt to rescue Vygotsky from Marx. Martin really manages to rescue Vygotsky from the rescuers. I don't know if I would try to reduce Vygotsky's "methods" to three as Martin does. I know that Vygotsky himself does this in various places, but he keeps coming up with three different methods. In Chapter Two of Pedology of the Adolescent. Vygotsky first says that pedology borrows methods from other, neighboring sciences, but transforms these by giving them a new holistic object of study: not the child, but the age period of the child. He lists: A) Observation in a naturalistic setting (e.g. by parents and by teachers). This has been widely used in the USSR by Molozhavy and by Basov (2-47). Vygotsky points out that this method is more objective and more reliable than unscientific reminiscences or imaginary reconstructions of childhood (2-46). But unlike reminiscences and reconstructions, ?vital facts? cannot be produced on demand: the naturalism of the observation prevents the researcher from inducing them. B) Experiments (e.g. the Vygotsky blocks test). Since previous psychological experimentation depended on self-observation, it had been considered that experiments were not applicable to children. But Vygotsky points out that well designed experiments (e.g. the functional method of dual stimulation) do not require self-observation and allow researchers to observe stages that simply disappear in naturalistic behaviour (e.g. the formation of the choice reaction) (2-50~2-51). C) Natural Experiments (e.g. experimental homework, experimental household tasks). This is a synthesis of A) and B), something which is an experiment for the researcher but not for the research subject (2-52~2-54). D) Clinical Examinations and Tests (e.g. Piaget?s system of one on one interviews to determine the child?s conception of reality, IQ testing, etc.). This is widely used in defectology (2-55~2-59). E) Testing (e.g. Cattell, Wechsler, and Binet?s ?personality tests?). Vygotsky points out three different purposes for mass testing (mental giftedness, monitoring development, and school achievement) and two different types of result (numerical and qualitative). (2-60~2-64) F) Methode d?inquete (surveying). This is the use of questionnaires (2-65~2-66). H) Anthropometrics, the mass examination of a whole population (2-67). G) Somatoscopy, the clinical examination of single individuals over time (2-67) H) Study of the Social Environment, the study of the socio-economic status, the class environment, and the living conditions of children favoured by A.B. Zalkind (2-68~2-69). I) Document Collection, amassing a data base of child artworks, diary entries, and other documents. (2-69). J) Upbringing and Teaching Studies, presumably the kind of pencil-and-paper studies that the Sterns did on their three children, or the kind of classroom studies used in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech. (2-70). Then Vygotsky lists three methods which are really specific to pedology: genetic, comparative, and "synthetic" method. In HDHMF, on the other hand, he has a chapter on "Research Methods" which he then differentiates into THREE chapters ("analysis", "genesis" and "structure"). And then the analysis chapter speaks of conditional-genetic analysis and experimental-genetic and even causal-dynamic analysis (and criticizes, phenomenology--something that Martin doesn't quite agree with). But the main thing Vygotsky does in this chapter is warn against: a) trying to distinguish analyzing a thing and analyzing a process b) trying to distinguish description and explanation c) beginning an analysis of a process with the product rather than with the prehistory I guess I think of the genetic, comparative, and synthetic method as three ways rescuing ourselves from these. Genesis analyzes things as if they were processes and processes as if they were things without ever forgetting that neither is reducible to the other. Comparison is a way of arriving a description that explains and explanation that describes. And what Vygotsky really means by the "synthetic" method is what we now call triangulation, but what Marx called the anatomy of the ape:description and explanation of both process and product with the prehistory firmly in mind, but also with a clear sense that the present only feels pre-determined: it's really just as much the outcome of free will and chance as the future still is. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, James Ma wrote: Thank you so much, Martin. On 19 December 2017 at 21:15, Martin John Packer wrote: On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:09 AM, James Ma wrote: Hi Michael, I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's path to knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, evolving social world? Thank you. James Hi James, Much has been said about this question in this discussion group over the years! Here are some notes I made some time ago. I am sure that others will jump in! :) Vygotsky viewed methodology as central to the kind of psychology he wanted to create: ?the methodology,? he wrote, ?will be the first step forward" (2004 [1926-7], p. 242). And ?Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, to jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological science right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on it.? There were three central aspects to the methodology that Vygotsky envisioned for his ?general psychology?: analysis, genetic inquiry, and experimentation. They amount to a conception of qualitative research that is significantly different from much of what goes by that name today. One reason for this is that methodology for Vygotsky was not merely technique but ?the theory of scientific method? in which ?practice and philosophy are united.? In other words it was a logic of inquiry, a paradigm which involved assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how we can know (epistemology). The ?analytical method? was of central importance to Vygotsky, and he rescued it from phenomenology and from so-called Marxist psychologies of his time. It is the study of the internal relations of a complex whole. For example, water should not be analyzed into its elements but studied as a molecule in its qualitatively different forms: ice, liquid, vapor, etc. (1987/1934). Analysis is ?the highest form of induction.? It requires no repetition, for it is the study of a particular case for the general properties which are realized in it. Analysis is to ?perceive the general in the particular;? the particular phenomenon is maximally abstracted from its specific conditions. For example, Pavlov?s study of salivation in dogs was an analysis of reflexes in general, in animals in general. Vygotsky?s model here was Marx?s analysis of the commodity, a form with internal contradictions, through the selection of a unit of analysis, a ?cell?: the commodity. Analysis requires the partition of a complex whole into its aspects. In other words analysis is a form of case study, idiographic and holistic. Its aim is to discern general laws; objective tendencies which underlie the manifold appearances. Its products are not essences but ?generalizations which have boundaries and degrees.? The second aspect is genetic inquiry. Vygotsky wrote that he agreed with Marx that ?the only science is history.? History meant ?two things: a general dialectical approach to things; in this sense, everything has its history,? and, second, human history: ?the uniqueness of the human mind lies in the fact that history and evolution are united (synthesis) in it? (1986). Genetic inquiry requires tracing the history of the development of a phenomenon, the path it has followed, to identify its underlying objective tendencies. It attends to the process of sublation in which earlier forms are both overcome and preserved. Furthermore, it is an inquiry that is oriented by practical concerns, concerned to facilitate the leap from necessity to freedom by mastery of the tendencies that are identified. A genetic account is a description, but also provides an explanation. It weaves together ontogenesis (the process of ?individualization?), history (cultural evolution), phylogenesis (biological evolution), and microgenesis (experiment). Indeed, Vygotsky's methodology includes a central place for experimentation: what he called ?Traps for Nature.? But this was not experimentation in the sense of manipulation of variables, standardization of procedure, with the researcher as detached observer. On the contrary, for Vygotsky an experiment was a collaboration between researcher and participant as they together established the conditions for the possibility of the phenomenon of interest (e.g. the famous blocks task). An experiment is a form of analysis, it is ?an analysis in action, as each analysis is an experiment in thought? (2004/1926-7). The unusual character of this view of experimentation is revealed by Vygotsky's statement that ?every lyrical poem is an experiment.? In Vygotsky?s view the artificiality of an experiment is a merit, not a weakness. It allows us to reveal a historical process in abstracted form. Furthermore, an experiment provides a historical analysis, through the opportunity to study the microgenesis of a phenomenon. For Vygotsky, historical methods and logical analysis (the logic of an experimental design) are not opposed, because logic is sedimented history. Martin Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> From ewall@umich.edu Wed Dec 20 16:59:33 2017 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:59:33 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: I, for various and sundry reasons, became interested in the very thought of teaching mathematics and came to UM a few years after Martin had left. Talking with some of those who probably were among Martin?s students and some of his teaching colleagues, I was left with the impression that ?research methods? happened in a very different atmosphere than what I then felt around me. I took this two semester course Martin speaks about. I almost left UM after the first quantitative semester (I have a very, very strong theoretical background in probability and statistics) as I couldn?t figure out why somebody would engage in such things and, although the second qualitative semester made a little more sense (and there actually was one interesting use of mathematics), I began seriously wondering why I was there. It took a former colleague of Martin?s to first introduce me to Vygotsky and later to Gadamer (who sort of introduced me to Heidegger) before I thought there might be something interesting to think about as regards the teaching of mathematics. However, they and I were definitely in a small minority. So, Martin thank you for that course. Although I never was exposed to it, I was exposed to several who were influenced by it and was exposed to teaching colleagues of yours who shared some of your thinking at that time. Ed > On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > I too have co-taught a research methods class - a two-semester course, at U Mich School of Education. A description of the course has been sitting for almost 20 years on an abandoned web page. It focuses largely on what was my responsibility, the interpretive component (less prestigious for sure, but more intriguing for some students), but contains quite a lot of detail and supporting materials (syllabi and handouts). I?m sure it?s now somewhat out of date, but perhaps it may be of some use to someone? > > > > And thanks, David, for your kind comments. :) > > Martin > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:27 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I was teaching a course in research methods back in 2012, and as a way of > trying to keep inter-necine tension over who would supervise whom to a > minimum, I did propose that one professor would teach and then > supervise the more prestigious quantitative studies and I would teach and > supervise the less prestigious qualitative studies (this worked out about > as well as you can imagine....). While I was trying to make this solution > work, I got Martin's book on qualitative research and read it, but what > Martin says about it is quite correct: it's not a "how to" book. Compare > with Keith Richards, "Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL" (Palgrave Macmillan) or > Johnny Saldana "Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers" (Sage). Richards > begins his collection of piecemeal accounts with horrifying "how not to" > vignettes of how he victimized his students for "misapplying" Conversation > Analysis: this is how not to teach ideas to students. Saldana is a little > better, but the closest he gets to good examples of how to be continent, > object-specific, and concrete is advice like "reflect on analytic codings". > Show me, Professor! > > Martin's article isn't a demonstration of qualitative methods: it's on a > level of philosophical abstraction and historical specificity that a lot of > my (ex-)students would find hard to follow (e.g. the foray into the > difference between Bekhterev and Dilthey, mechanists and Deborinites). I > once tried rewriting it, using Vygotsky's five stages to describe the > expansion of the ZPD into a "bull frog that would be as big as a bull". > That didn't work either--students are an endless treasure trove of > misconceptions and misunderstandings. But Martin's article does have the > opposition between vulgar materialism and "interpretative" psychology we > are talking about. And it has more. > > It's a pre-emptive reply to the "Revisionist Revolution". At the beginning > of 2016, I wrote a something I now regret a little about van der Veer and > Yasinitsky's "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies", in which I tried > to summarize the book as seven things you always thought about Vygotsky > which turn out to be true after all. I think my posting captured the > sensationalist tone of the "Revisionists", but it missed something much > more important--what Sasha refers to as the right-Vygotskyan attempt to > rescue Vygotsky from Marx. Martin really manages to rescue Vygotsky from > the rescuers. > > I don't know if I would try to reduce Vygotsky's "methods" to three as > Martin does. I know that Vygotsky himself does this in various places, but > he keeps coming up with three different methods. In Chapter Two of Pedology > of the Adolescent. Vygotsky first says that pedology borrows methods from > other, neighboring sciences, but transforms these by giving them a new > holistic object of study: not the child, but the age period of the child. > > He lists: > > A) Observation in a naturalistic setting (e.g. by parents and by teachers). > This has been widely used in the USSR by Molozhavy and by Basov (2-47). > Vygotsky points out that this method is more objective and more reliable > than unscientific reminiscences or imaginary reconstructions of childhood > (2-46). But unlike reminiscences and reconstructions, ?vital facts? cannot > be produced on demand: the naturalism of the observation prevents the > researcher from inducing them. > > B) Experiments (e.g. the Vygotsky blocks test). Since previous > psychological experimentation depended on self-observation, it had been > considered that experiments were not applicable to children. But Vygotsky > points out that well designed experiments (e.g. the functional method of > dual stimulation) do not require self-observation and allow researchers to > observe stages that simply disappear in naturalistic behaviour (e.g. the > formation of the choice reaction) (2-50~2-51). > > C) Natural Experiments (e.g. experimental homework, experimental household > tasks). This is a synthesis of A) and B), something which is an experiment > for the researcher but not for the research subject (2-52~2-54). > > D) Clinical Examinations and Tests (e.g. Piaget?s system of one on one > interviews to determine the child?s conception of reality, IQ testing, > etc.). This is widely used in defectology (2-55~2-59). > > E) Testing (e.g. Cattell, Wechsler, and Binet?s ?personality tests?). > Vygotsky points out three different purposes for mass testing (mental > giftedness, monitoring development, and school achievement) and two > different types of result (numerical and qualitative). (2-60~2-64) > > F) Methode d?inquete (surveying). This is the use of questionnaires > (2-65~2-66). > > H) Anthropometrics, the mass examination of a whole population (2-67). > > G) Somatoscopy, the clinical examination of single individuals over time > (2-67) > > H) Study of the Social Environment, the study of the socio-economic status, > the class environment, and the living conditions of children favoured by > A.B. Zalkind (2-68~2-69). > > I) Document Collection, amassing a data base of child artworks, diary > entries, and other documents. (2-69). > > J) Upbringing and Teaching Studies, presumably the kind of pencil-and-paper > studies that the Sterns did on their three children, or the kind of > classroom studies used in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech. (2-70). > Then Vygotsky lists three methods which are really specific to pedology: > genetic, comparative, and "synthetic" method. In HDHMF, on the other hand, > he has a chapter on "Research Methods" which he then differentiates into > THREE chapters ("analysis", "genesis" and "structure"). And then the > analysis chapter speaks of conditional-genetic analysis > and experimental-genetic and even causal-dynamic analysis (and criticizes, > phenomenology--something that Martin doesn't quite agree with). But the > main thing Vygotsky does in this chapter is warn against: > > a) trying to distinguish analyzing a thing and analyzing a process > b) trying to distinguish description and explanation > c) beginning an analysis of a process with the product rather than with > the prehistory > > I guess I think of the genetic, comparative, and synthetic method as three > ways rescuing ourselves from these. Genesis analyzes things as if they were > processes and processes as if they were things without ever forgetting that > neither is reducible to the other. Comparison is a way of arriving a > description that explains and explanation that describes. And what Vygotsky > really means by the "synthetic" method is what we now call triangulation, > but what Marx called the anatomy of the ape:description and explanation of > both process and product with the prehistory firmly in mind, but also with > a clear sense that the present only feels pre-determined: it's really just > as much the outcome of free will and chance as the future still is. > David Kellogg > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM, James Ma wrote: > > Thank you so much, Martin. > > > On 19 December 2017 at 21:15, Martin John Packer > wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:09 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > I'd like to ask you a question alongside Greg's: What is Vygotsky's > path > to > knowledge, in particular, knowledge about the constantly unfolding, > evolving social world? > > Thank you. > > James > > Hi James, > > Much has been said about this question in this discussion group over the > years! Here are some notes I made some time ago. I am sure that others > will > jump in! :) > > Vygotsky viewed methodology as central to the kind of psychology he > wanted > to create: ?the methodology,? he wrote, ?will be the first step forward" > (2004 [1926-7], p. 242). And ?Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, > to > jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological > science > right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on > it.? > > There were three central aspects to the methodology that Vygotsky > envisioned for his ?general psychology?: analysis, genetic inquiry, and > experimentation. They amount to a conception of qualitative research that > is significantly different from much of what goes by that name today. One > reason for this is that methodology for Vygotsky was not merely technique > but ?the theory of scientific method? in which ?practice and philosophy > are > united.? In other words it was a logic of inquiry, a paradigm which > involved assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how we can know > (epistemology). > > The ?analytical method? was of central importance to Vygotsky, and he > rescued it from phenomenology and from so-called Marxist psychologies of > his time. It is the study of the internal relations of a complex whole. > For > example, water should not be analyzed into its elements but studied as a > molecule in its qualitatively different forms: ice, liquid, vapor, etc. > (1987/1934). Analysis is ?the highest form of induction.? It requires no > repetition, for it is the study of a particular case for the general > properties which are realized in it. Analysis is to ?perceive the general > in the particular;? the particular phenomenon is maximally abstracted > from > its specific conditions. For example, Pavlov?s study of salivation in > dogs > was an analysis of reflexes in general, in animals in general. Vygotsky?s > model here was Marx?s analysis of the commodity, a form with internal > contradictions, through the selection of a unit of analysis, a ?cell?: > the > commodity. Analysis requires the partition of a complex whole into its > aspects. In other words analysis is a form of case study, idiographic and > holistic. Its aim is to discern general laws; objective tendencies which > underlie the manifold appearances. Its products are not essences but > ?generalizations which have boundaries and degrees.? > > The second aspect is genetic inquiry. Vygotsky wrote that he agreed with > Marx that ?the only science is history.? History meant ?two things: a > general dialectical approach to things; in this sense, everything has its > history,? and, second, human history: ?the uniqueness of the human mind > lies in the fact that history and evolution are united (synthesis) in it? > (1986). Genetic inquiry requires tracing the history of the development > of > a phenomenon, the path it has followed, to identify its underlying > objective tendencies. It attends to the process of sublation in which > earlier forms are both overcome and preserved. Furthermore, it is an > inquiry that is oriented by practical concerns, concerned to facilitate > the > leap from necessity to freedom by mastery of the tendencies that are > identified. A genetic account is a description, but also provides an > explanation. It weaves together ontogenesis (the process of > ?individualization?), history (cultural evolution), phylogenesis > (biological evolution), and microgenesis (experiment). > > Indeed, Vygotsky's methodology includes a central place for > experimentation: what he called ?Traps for Nature.? But this was not > experimentation in the sense of manipulation of variables, > standardization > of procedure, with the researcher as detached observer. On the contrary, > for Vygotsky an experiment was a collaboration between researcher and > participant as they together established the conditions for the > possibility > of the phenomenon of interest (e.g. the famous blocks task). An > experiment > is a form of analysis, it is ?an analysis in action, as each analysis is > an > experiment in thought? (2004/1926-7). The unusual character of this view > of > experimentation is revealed by Vygotsky's statement that ?every lyrical > poem is an experiment.? In Vygotsky?s view the artificiality of an > experiment is a merit, not a weakness. It allows us to reveal a > historical > process in abstracted form. Furthermore, an experiment provides a > historical analysis, through the opportunity to study the microgenesis > of a > phenomenon. For Vygotsky, historical methods and logical analysis (the > logic of an experimental design) are not opposed, because logic is > sedimented history. > > Martin > > > > > =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Dec 20 17:43:13 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 01:43:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Interesting, Ed. It was while teaching that course that I realized what a hot potato teaching research methods can be. After all, in a graduate program one is teaching the current and future research assistants and associates of one?s faculty colleagues. As I recall we taught the course once and then my co-instructor (I won?t name names) received funding that relieved her from teaching for a year or two. That first year we alternated ?blocks? of empirical-analytic and interpretive approaches, seven blocks in all, each a few weeks in length. We tried to involve the students in a dialog between the approaches, emphasizing their similarities as well as their differences. It sounds as though subsequently the two approaches became divided into separate semesters. Martin On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Edward Wall > wrote: I, for various and sundry reasons, became interested in the very thought of teaching mathematics and came to UM a few years after Martin had left. Talking with some of those who probably were among Martin?s students and some of his teaching colleagues, I was left with the impression that ?research methods? happened in a very different atmosphere than what I then felt around me. I took this two semester course Martin speaks about. I almost left UM after the first quantitative semester (I have a very, very strong theoretical background in probability and statistics) as I couldn?t figure out why somebody would engage in such things and, although the second qualitative semester made a little more sense (and there actually was one interesting use of mathematics), I began seriously wondering why I was there. It took a former colleague of Martin?s to first introduce me to Vygotsky and later to Gadamer (who sort of introduced me to Heidegger) before I thought there might be something interesting to think about as regards the teaching of mathematics. However, they and I were definitely in a small minority. So, Martin thank you for that course. Although I never was exposed to it, I was exposed to several who were influenced by it and was exposed to teaching colleagues of yours who shared some of your thinking at that time. Ed From s.franklin08@btinternet.com Thu Dec 21 01:10:28 2017 From: s.franklin08@btinternet.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:10:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Making a Donation to the LRA Brian Street Memorial Award for Bridging Anthropology, Educ and Literacy References: Message-ID: <00083903-9891-46F8-AA49-F09E4A8D94F9@btinternet.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: David Bloome > Date: 21 December 2017 at 02:41:06 GMT > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > Subject: Making a Donation to the LRA Brian Street Memorial Award for Bridging Anthropology, Educ and Literacy > > I want to let you know that it is now possible to make a donation to the award in Brian's name at the Literacy Research Association (LRA). You can make a donation with your credit card if you would like. The award is named the Brian Street Memorial Award for Scholarship Bridging Anthropology, Education and Literacy. As you may know, the award funds a scholar from outside of the U.S, to attend LRA and present research / scholarship that bridges anthropology, education, and literacy. To donate please click on the link below and follow directions. > > http://www.literacyresearchassociation.org/2020 > > Our goal is to raise $70,000 in the next 12 months and $100,00 over the next two years. So please, donate generously. > > If you have any difficulties with the web site in making a donation, please let me know and I'll be glad to help. > > By the way, the donation may be tax deductible in the U.S. > > Also, please share this e-mail with others who may want to make a donation. > > Much thanks, > > Dave > > David Bloome, PH.D. > EHE Distinguished Professor of Teaching and Learning > Department of Teaching and Learning > College of Education and Human Ecology > The Ohio State University > 225 Ramseyer Hall > The Ohio State University > 29 W. Woodruff Avenue > Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA From ajrajala@gmail.com Fri Dec 22 05:11:19 2017 From: ajrajala@gmail.com (Antti Rajala) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:11:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Conference on educational theory and methods in Cambridge, August 28-29, 2018 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The second call for proposals is just released for a conference *in the University of Cambridge, UK, on August 28-29, 2018* that I believe is of interest to readers of this list. The conference is organized by two special interest groups (Educational Theory and Methods in Learning Research) of *European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI).* We invite you to consider submissions to what promises to be a stimulating and interesting event at University of Cambridge UK (August 28-29), with provoking *keynotes (Martyn Hammersley and Susan Robertson)* and varied activities! Also, follow the developments on the conference Facebook page and on Twitter #theoryandmethods. The theme of the conference is* ?Dialogue between ontology and epistemology: New perspectives on theory and methodology in research on learning and education?*. This conference theme is intended to provoke discussions about the relationship between the way in which we go about researching learning and education (epistemology) and how we understand the nature of learning and education (ontology). The theme also aims to inspire submissions coming from different traditions of theorizing and from a broad range of methodological approaches. The conference offers a space for exploring and discussing theories and methodologies in research on learning and education, and to promote friendly debate and reflective dialogue across paradigms of research. *Please, find information about the submission types, review criteria and organization at www.theoryandmethods.com .* With best Christmas wishes, on the behalf of the organizers, Antti Rajala ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Na?ytto?kuva 2017-12-22 kello 12.19.56.png Type: image/png Size: 799575 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171222/823cf390/attachment-0001.png From ajrajala@gmail.com Fri Dec 22 05:55:52 2017 From: ajrajala@gmail.com (Antti Rajala) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:55:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Conference on educational theory and methods in Cambridge, August 28-29, 2018 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, (My first message did not seem to get through, so I try without a picture, hopefully not sending twice) The second call for proposals is just released for a conference *in the University of Cambridge, UK, on August 28-29, 2018* that I believe is of interest to readers of this list. The conference is organized by two special interest groups (Educational Theory and Methods in Learning Research) of *European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI).* We invite you to consider submissions to what promises to be a stimulating and interesting event at University of Cambridge UK (August 28-29), with provoking *keynotes (Martyn Hammersley and Susan Robertson)* and varied activities! Also, follow the developments on the conference Facebook page and on Twitter #theoryandmethods. The theme of the conference is* ?Dialogue between ontology and epistemology: New perspectives on theory and methodology in research on learning and education?*. This conference theme is intended to provoke discussions about the relationship between the way in which we go about researching learning and education (epistemology) and how we understand the nature of learning and education (ontology). The theme also aims to inspire submissions coming from different traditions of theorizing and from a broad range of methodological approaches. The conference offers a space for exploring and discussing theories and methodologies in research on learning and education, and to promote friendly debate and reflective dialogue across paradigms of research. *Please, find information about the submission types, review criteria and organization at www.theoryandmethods.com .* With best Christmas wishes, on the behalf of the organizers, Antti Rajala From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Dec 22 16:29:13 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:29:13 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed In-Reply-To: References: <1512671613171.16045@iped.uio.no> <1513414515401.8449@iped.uio.no> <85ABFDF6-C95B-4103-84FD-34F90283D4E4@uniandes.edu.co> <9C8BF5C8-EEA0-4899-85D7-CEEE289C41B2@gmail.com> <04BD0DBB-AC3A-44D3-887B-3EB45C5AC95D@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: It is interesting (and important) that a lot of time-honored misunderstandings we reject rather dogmatically at first turn out to be based on inconvenient truths that never quite disappear. Dualism, for example, is really based on the inconvenient truth that a weightless thought will move a weighty limb. We must, if we are honest enough to admit that our initial rejection of the law of conservation (of mass, of energy) was as dogmatic as the Cartesian acceptance of it, end up with something like a law of conversation (of matter, of meaning) instead. I think that my rejection of the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research was also initially based on dogmatism, and in retrospect my colleagues were right to resent it. For example, in linguistics, studies which are more interested in the "language system" end of the cline of instantiation (that is, the continuum that links the language as a whole with an individual instance of text, running through text types, registers, and register types) tend inevitably to the quantitative while those that are more interested in individual texts have to be more qualitative. The law of conversation, however, requires that you see the choices made in an individual instance of text against the backdrop of the choices afforded by the language system as a whole which were not made. Conversely that the language system as a whole really boils down, in the end, to the sum of all the textual ever made or makeable by a speech community as instances of text. Every text is an irregularity made possible by quantitative regularities, which in turn gives rise to a qualitative regularity of its own. But in giving rise to that qualitative regularity, it gives an imperceptible nudge to the quantitative regularities, both renewing and altering them. David Kellogg Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on ?Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?' Free e-print available (for a short time only) at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > Interesting, Ed. It was while teaching that course that I realized what a > hot potato teaching research methods can be. After all, in a graduate > program one is teaching the current and future research assistants and > associates of one?s faculty colleagues. > > As I recall we taught the course once and then my co-instructor (I won?t > name names) received funding that relieved her from teaching for a year or > two. That first year we alternated ?blocks? of empirical-analytic and > interpretive approaches, seven blocks in all, each a few weeks in length. > We tried to involve the students in a dialog between the approaches, > emphasizing their similarities as well as their differences. It sounds as > though subsequently the two approaches became divided into separate > semesters. > > Martin > > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Edward Wall umich.edu>> wrote: > > I, for various and sundry reasons, became interested in the very > thought of teaching mathematics and came to UM a few years after Martin had > left. Talking with some of those who probably were among Martin?s students > and some of his teaching colleagues, I was left with the impression that > ?research methods? happened in a very different atmosphere than what I then > felt around me. I took this two semester course Martin speaks about. I > almost left UM after the first quantitative semester (I have a very, very > strong theoretical background in probability and statistics) as I couldn?t > figure out why somebody would engage in such things and, although the > second qualitative semester made a little more sense (and there actually > was one interesting use of mathematics), I began seriously wondering why I > was there. It took a former colleague of Martin?s to first introduce me to > Vygotsky and later to Gadamer (who sort of introduced me to Heidegger) > before I thought there might be something interesting to think about as > regards the teaching of mathematics. However, they and I were definitely in > a small minority. > > So, Martin thank you for that course. Although I never was exposed to > it, I was exposed to several who were influenced by it and was exposed to > teaching colleagues of yours who shared some of your thinking at that time. > > Ed > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Fri Dec 22 16:37:29 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 00:37:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie (Ilyenkov) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> I know this takes it a bit away from the article for discussion, but the notion of the "ideal" that Michael brings up below?which I understand is consistent with Ilyenkov's descriptions in Dialectics of the Ideal?is interesting. Recently, Ilyenkov has been brought up in the list to critique semiotic takes in CHAT, but Michael now uses the term "synecdochical function", where a thing participating in a relation "stands for" the relation as a whole. And so, a question comes up, is this not a semiotic relation, the relation between a sign and the thing it stands for? And how is Ilyenkov's (and the Marx Ilyenkov talks about) different from the semiotic notions that Sasha and others dislike? Ilyenkov notes that although the "meaning" of the words Marx uses when describing "value" as "ideal" is the same the meaning philosophers like Plato or Hegel before him used, the "concept" (which Ilyenkov clarifies is "the ways of understanding this meaning") that Marx proposes is different. The difference is that ideal, or in the specific case of economy, "value," is not the material thing as it appears in the mind, but rather a completely objective relation that exists between two things and that is expressed in that material thing. As such, the ideals not the result of a conscious mind that subjectively projects it, but exists objectively and is established outside consciousness: "According to Marx, of course, the ideality of the value-form consists not in the fact that this form represents a mental phenomenon existing only in the brain of the commodity-owner or theoretician, but in the fact that in this case, as in many others, the corporeally palpable form of the thing (for example, a coat) is only a form of expression of quite a different ?thing? (linen, as a value) with which it has nothing in common. The value of the linen is represented, expressed, ?embodied? in the form of a coat, and the form of the coat is the ?ideal or represented form? of the value of the linen. This is a completely objective relationship (as it is entirely independent of the commodity-owner?s consciousness and will, established outside his consciousness), within which the natural form of commodity B becomes the value-form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A, the authorised representative of its ?value? nature, of the ?substance? which is ?embodied? both here and there" (Ilyenkov, 2012, Dialectics of the Ideal, p. 57) What is "represented" as a thing then is "a form of human activity, a form of life-activity that [people] perform together, developing quite spontaneously, 'out of the sight of consciousness', and materially established in the form of the relationship between things" (p. 58). When I was reading and commenting on James Ma's notes recently, I was perhaps attributing (or rather suspicious that I might have reasons to attribute) to him the kind of ideality that Ilyenkov critiques (the one that is ideal because it's in the mind rather than in the relation between things and part of people's relations). But James defended his position appealing precisely to dialectical materialism; in the same way that Sasha (and others) might see in Vygotsky's a notion of sign as involving "randomness" (semiotics as conventionalism), only to lead David K. to argue that "Vygotsky does not accept conventionality as a pervasive principle in language" (cited from many posts ago). But what Ilyenkov suggests to me is that there is a way to move forward without having to reject one (semiotics) to achieve the other (dialectical materialist psychology). Rather, the "concept" of sign, or semiotics, needs to be clarified in proper materialist terms. Whether doing so means "transcending" (because he had not) or "translating" (because he already had) Vygotsky, is of course debatable, but does not appear as relevant as to actually pursue that path. As Huw also suggested, I read Michael's piece as moving in that direction. And this seems long enough for a Dec 23rd post, Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: 19 December 2017 02:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Hi all, there might be some light on the question of perezhivanie of perezhivanie from the German Ideology. Marx/Engels write: Where there exists a relation, it exists for me, the animal does not "relate" to anything and not at all. For the animal its relation to others does not relate as relation. (((Wo ein Verh?ltnis existiert, da existiert es f?r mich, das Tier ?verh?lt" sich zu Nichts und ?berhaupt nicht. F?r das Tier existiert sein Verh?ltnis zu andern nicht als Verh?ltnis" p.30)))) As I said before, in phenomenological (post-Husserlian) phenomenology, there is Being, but consciousness can be only with beings (things) that allow past being to be made present again. This making present is central to consciousness in the formulations of Husserl and Mead (from whom we can learn a lot). The organism-relation exists in the animal world, but not for the animal and not as relation. Marx, in *Capital* shows how the ideal emerges. It is a human-human relation that reflects itself in human-thing relations, and the human-thing relation reflects itself in human-human relations (that's why we have perezhivanie of perezhivanie). Some thing participating in the relation then has synecdochical function in that it comes to stand for the relation as a whole and especially for anything ideal (use-value for commodities, meanings for words, etc) Or so it makes sense to me Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 27 00:27:19 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:27:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Perezhivanie of perezhivanie (Ilyenkov) In-Reply-To: <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> References: , , <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1514363239038.33240@iped.uio.no> I am forwarding an e-mail that I sent few days before Christmas, and which does not seem to have gone through. Meanwhile, I hope everyone is having/has had a peaceful and joyful time these days, and I am sending my best wishes for the New Year to you all. Alfredo. Below the post that did not come through: I know this takes it a bit away from the article for discussion, but the notion of the "ideal" that Michael brings up below?which I understand is consistent with Ilyenkov's descriptions in Dialectics of the Ideal?is interesting. Recently, Ilyenkov has been brought up in the list to critique semiotic takes in CHAT, but Michael now uses the term "synecdochical function", where a thing participating in a relation "stands for" the relation as a whole. And so, a question comes up, is this not a semiotic relation, the relation between a sign and the thing it stands for? And how is Ilyenkov's (and the Marx Ilyenkov talks about) different from the semiotic notions that Sasha and others dislike? Ilyenkov notes that although the "meaning" of the words Marx uses when describing "value" as "ideal" is the same the meaning philosophers like Plato or Hegel before him used, the "concept" (which Ilyenkov clarifies is "the ways of understanding this meaning") that Marx proposes is different. The difference is that ideal, or in the specific case of economy, "value," is not the material thing as it appears in the mind, but rather a completely objective relation that exists between two things and that is expressed in that material thing. As such, the ideals not the result of a conscious mind that subjectively projects it, but exists objectively and is established outside consciousness: "According to Marx, of course, the ideality of the value-form consists not in the fact that this form represents a mental phenomenon existing only in the brain of the commodity-owner or theoretician, but in the fact that in this case, as in many others, the corporeally palpable form of the thing (for example, a coat) is only a form of expression of quite a different ?thing? (linen, as a value) with which it has nothing in common. The value of the linen is represented, expressed, ?embodied? in the form of a coat, and the form of the coat is the ?ideal or represented form? of the value of the linen. This is a completely objective relationship (as it is entirely independent of the commodity-owner?s consciousness and will, established outside his consciousness), within which the natural form of commodity B becomes the value-form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A, the authorised representative of its ?value? nature, of the ?substance? which is ?embodied? both here and there" (Ilyenkov, 2012, Dialectics of the Ideal, p. 57) What is "represented" as a thing then is "a form of human activity, a form of life-activity that [people] perform together, developing quite spontaneously, 'out of the sight of consciousness', and materially established in the form of the relationship between things" (p. 58). When I was reading and commenting on James Ma's notes recently, I was perhaps attributing (or rather suspicious that I might have reasons to attribute) to him the kind of ideality that Ilyenkov critiques (the one that is ideal because it's in the mind rather than in the relation between things and part of people's relations). But James defended his position appealing precisely to dialectical materialism; in the same way that Sasha (and others) might see in Vygotsky's a notion of sign as involving "randomness" (semiotics as conventionalism), only to lead David K. to argue that "Vygotsky does not accept conventionality as a pervasive principle in language" (cited from many posts ago). But what Ilyenkov suggests to me is that there is a way to move forward without having to reject one (semiotics) to achieve the other (dialectical materialist psychology). Rather, the "concept" of sign, or semiotics, needs to be clarified in proper materialist terms. Whether doing so means "transcending" (because he had not) or "translating" (because he already had) Vygotsky, is of course debatable, but does not appear as relevant as to actually pursue that path. As Huw also suggested, I read Michael's piece as moving in that direction. And this seems long enough for a Dec 23rd post, Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: 19 December 2017 02:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Hi all, there might be some light on the question of perezhivanie of perezhivanie from the German Ideology. Marx/Engels write: Where there exists a relation, it exists for me, the animal does not "relate" to anything and not at all. For the animal its relation to others does not relate as relation. (((Wo ein Verh?ltnis existiert, da existiert es f?r mich, das Tier ?verh?lt" sich zu Nichts und ?berhaupt nicht. F?r das Tier existiert sein Verh?ltnis zu andern nicht als Verh?ltnis" p.30)))) As I said before, in phenomenological (post-Husserlian) phenomenology, there is Being, but consciousness can be only with beings (things) that allow past being to be made present again. This making present is central to consciousness in the formulations of Husserl and Mead (from whom we can learn a lot). The organism-relation exists in the animal world, but not for the animal and not as relation. Marx, in *Capital* shows how the ideal emerges. It is a human-human relation that reflects itself in human-thing relations, and the human-thing relation reflects itself in human-human relations (that's why we have perezhivanie of perezhivanie). Some thing participating in the relation then has synecdochical function in that it comes to stand for the relation as a whole and especially for anything ideal (use-value for commodities, meanings for words, etc) Or so it makes sense to me Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 27 02:12:28 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:12:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Perezhivanie of perezhivanie (Ilyenkov) In-Reply-To: <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> References: , , <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1514369548765.58663@iped.uio.no> I am forwarding an e-mail that I sent few days before Christmas, and which does not seem to have gone through. Meanwhile, I hope everyone is having/has had a peaceful and joyful time these days, and I am sending my best wishes for the New Year to you all. Alfredo. Below, the post: I know this takes it a bit away from the article for discussion, but the notion of the "ideal" that Michael brings up below?which I understand is consistent with Ilyenkov's descriptions in Dialectics of the Ideal?is interesting. Recently, Ilyenkov has been brought up in the list to critique semiotic takes in CHAT, but Michael now uses the term "synecdochical function", where a thing participating in a relation "stands for" the relation as a whole. And so, a question comes up, is this not a semiotic relation, the relation between a sign and the thing it stands for? And how is Ilyenkov's (and the Marx Ilyenkov talks about) different from the semiotic notions that Sasha and others dislike? Ilyenkov notes that although the "meaning" of the words Marx uses when describing "value" as "ideal" is the same the meaning philosophers like Plato or Hegel before him used, the "concept" (which Ilyenkov clarifies is "the ways of understanding this meaning") that Marx proposes is different. The difference is that ideal, or in the specific case of economy, "value," is not the material thing as it appears in the mind, but rather a completely objective relation that exists between two things and that is expressed in that material thing. As such, the ideals not the result of a conscious mind that subjectively projects it, but exists objectively and is established outside consciousness: "According to Marx, of course, the ideality of the value-form consists not in the fact that this form represents a mental phenomenon existing only in the brain of the commodity-owner or theoretician, but in the fact that in this case, as in many others, the corporeally palpable form of the thing (for example, a coat) is only a form of expression of quite a different ?thing? (linen, as a value) with which it has nothing in common. The value of the linen is represented, expressed, ?embodied? in the form of a coat, and the form of the coat is the ?ideal or represented form? of the value of the linen. This is a completely objective relationship (as it is entirely independent of the commodity-owner?s consciousness and will, established outside his consciousness), within which the natural form of commodity B becomes the value-form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A, the authorised representative of its ?value? nature, of the ?substance? which is ?embodied? both here and there" (Ilyenkov, 2012, Dialectics of the Ideal, p. 57) What is "represented" as a thing then is "a form of human activity, a form of life-activity that [people] perform together, developing quite spontaneously, 'out of the sight of consciousness', and materially established in the form of the relationship between things" (p. 58). When I was reading and commenting on James Ma's notes recently, I was perhaps attributing (or rather being suspicious that I might have reasons to attribute) to him the kind of ideality that Ilyenkov critiques (the one that is ideal because it's in the mind rather than in the relation between things and part of people's relations). But James defended his position appealing precisely to dialectical materialism; in the same way Sasha (and others) might see in Vygotsky's a notion of sign as involving "randomness" (semiotics as conventionalism), only to lead David K. to argue that "Vygotsky does not accept conventionality as a pervasive principle in language" (cited from many posts ago). But is Ilyenkov here offering a way to move forward without having to reject one (semiotics) to achieve the other (dialectical materialist psychology)? For is not Ilyenkov's description akin to a sign? But of course, here the "concept" of sign needs to be clarified NOT as the ideal/subjective part of anotherwise material/objective reality. Whether doing so means "transcending" (because he had not) or "translating" (because he already had) Vygotsky, is of course debatable, but does not appear as relevant as to actually pursue that path. As Huw also suggested, I read Michael's piece as moving in that direction. And this seems long enough for a Dec 23rd post, Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: 19 December 2017 02:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Hi all, there might be some light on the question of perezhivanie of perezhivanie from the German Ideology. Marx/Engels write: Where there exists a relation, it exists for me, the animal does not "relate" to anything and not at all. For the animal its relation to others does not relate as relation. (((Wo ein Verh?ltnis existiert, da existiert es f?r mich, das Tier ?verh?lt" sich zu Nichts und ?berhaupt nicht. F?r das Tier existiert sein Verh?ltnis zu andern nicht als Verh?ltnis" p.30)))) As I said before, in phenomenological (post-Husserlian) phenomenology, there is Being, but consciousness can be only with beings (things) that allow past being to be made present again. This making present is central to consciousness in the formulations of Husserl and Mead (from whom we can learn a lot). The organism-relation exists in the animal world, but not for the animal and not as relation. Marx, in *Capital* shows how the ideal emerges. It is a human-human relation that reflects itself in human-thing relations, and the human-thing relation reflects itself in human-human relations (that's why we have perezhivanie of perezhivanie). Some thing participating in the relation then has synecdochical function in that it comes to stand for the relation as a whole and especially for anything ideal (use-value for commodities, meanings for words, etc) Or so it makes sense to me Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Dec 27 02:12:28 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:12:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Perezhivanie of perezhivanie (Ilyenkov) In-Reply-To: <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> References: , , <1513989449606.21068@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1514369548765.58663@iped.uio.no> I am forwarding an e-mail that I sent few days before Christmas, and which does not seem to have gone through. Meanwhile, I hope everyone is having/has had a peaceful and joyful time these days, and I am sending my best wishes for the New Year to you all. Alfredo. Below, the post: I know this takes it a bit away from the article for discussion, but the notion of the "ideal" that Michael brings up below?which I understand is consistent with Ilyenkov's descriptions in Dialectics of the Ideal?is interesting. Recently, Ilyenkov has been brought up in the list to critique semiotic takes in CHAT, but Michael now uses the term "synecdochical function", where a thing participating in a relation "stands for" the relation as a whole. And so, a question comes up, is this not a semiotic relation, the relation between a sign and the thing it stands for? And how is Ilyenkov's (and the Marx Ilyenkov talks about) different from the semiotic notions that Sasha and others dislike? Ilyenkov notes that although the "meaning" of the words Marx uses when describing "value" as "ideal" is the same the meaning philosophers like Plato or Hegel before him used, the "concept" (which Ilyenkov clarifies is "the ways of understanding this meaning") that Marx proposes is different. The difference is that ideal, or in the specific case of economy, "value," is not the material thing as it appears in the mind, but rather a completely objective relation that exists between two things and that is expressed in that material thing. As such, the ideals not the result of a conscious mind that subjectively projects it, but exists objectively and is established outside consciousness: "According to Marx, of course, the ideality of the value-form consists not in the fact that this form represents a mental phenomenon existing only in the brain of the commodity-owner or theoretician, but in the fact that in this case, as in many others, the corporeally palpable form of the thing (for example, a coat) is only a form of expression of quite a different ?thing? (linen, as a value) with which it has nothing in common. The value of the linen is represented, expressed, ?embodied? in the form of a coat, and the form of the coat is the ?ideal or represented form? of the value of the linen. This is a completely objective relationship (as it is entirely independent of the commodity-owner?s consciousness and will, established outside his consciousness), within which the natural form of commodity B becomes the value-form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A, the authorised representative of its ?value? nature, of the ?substance? which is ?embodied? both here and there" (Ilyenkov, 2012, Dialectics of the Ideal, p. 57) What is "represented" as a thing then is "a form of human activity, a form of life-activity that [people] perform together, developing quite spontaneously, 'out of the sight of consciousness', and materially established in the form of the relationship between things" (p. 58). When I was reading and commenting on James Ma's notes recently, I was perhaps attributing (or rather being suspicious that I might have reasons to attribute) to him the kind of ideality that Ilyenkov critiques (the one that is ideal because it's in the mind rather than in the relation between things and part of people's relations). But James defended his position appealing precisely to dialectical materialism; in the same way Sasha (and others) might see in Vygotsky's a notion of sign as involving "randomness" (semiotics as conventionalism), only to lead David K. to argue that "Vygotsky does not accept conventionality as a pervasive principle in language" (cited from many posts ago). But is Ilyenkov here offering a way to move forward without having to reject one (semiotics) to achieve the other (dialectical materialist psychology)? For is not Ilyenkov's description akin to a sign? But of course, here the "concept" of sign needs to be clarified NOT as the ideal/subjective part of anotherwise material/objective reality. Whether doing so means "transcending" (because he had not) or "translating" (because he already had) Vygotsky, is of course debatable, but does not appear as relevant as to actually pursue that path. As Huw also suggested, I read Michael's piece as moving in that direction. And this seems long enough for a Dec 23rd post, Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth Sent: 19 December 2017 02:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie Hi all, there might be some light on the question of perezhivanie of perezhivanie from the German Ideology. Marx/Engels write: Where there exists a relation, it exists for me, the animal does not "relate" to anything and not at all. For the animal its relation to others does not relate as relation. (((Wo ein Verh?ltnis existiert, da existiert es f?r mich, das Tier ?verh?lt" sich zu Nichts und ?berhaupt nicht. F?r das Tier existiert sein Verh?ltnis zu andern nicht als Verh?ltnis" p.30)))) As I said before, in phenomenological (post-Husserlian) phenomenology, there is Being, but consciousness can be only with beings (things) that allow past being to be made present again. This making present is central to consciousness in the formulations of Husserl and Mead (from whom we can learn a lot). The organism-relation exists in the animal world, but not for the animal and not as relation. Marx, in *Capital* shows how the ideal emerges. It is a human-human relation that reflects itself in human-thing relations, and the human-thing relation reflects itself in human-human relations (that's why we have perezhivanie of perezhivanie). Some thing participating in the relation then has synecdochical function in that it comes to stand for the relation as a whole and especially for anything ideal (use-value for commodities, meanings for words, etc) Or so it makes sense to me Michael Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics * On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, mike cole wrote: > A question for Michael and David concerning consciousness as perezhivanie > of > perezhivanie --- > > I think that in one of the prior discussions of perezhivanie on xmca I gave > the following example of my early encounter with the term, and want to > introduce it again to get some clarity about the current discussion of > Michael's article. > > Back when Russian rockets were heading to Cuba I used to commute from > (Lenin, nee Sparrow Hills) to the main campus of MGU, I would take a bus in > cold > weather to avoid a long walk from the Metro. The bus was so crowded that at > its second stop outside the downtown MGU campus, you would be lucky to be > able to cram into the bus and it only got worse until nearing the campus. > > I seem to remember that if asked about the bus ride, I would either say > that it was a kashmar (the French got to Moscow at an earlier date) or that > I "perezhil" (past tense) the 111 bus. And as I said it, I would re-live, > so to speak, my having lived through that intense, often unpleasant, > experience. I think it would be grammatical and sensible to describe my > recounting and re-membering that "experience" as perezhivanie of > perzhivanie. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate example. I was not using the term as part > of a set of theoretical terms (Vasilyuk had not written his book on > perezhivanie and I do not recall being present for a discussion, either of > why Leontiev was right and Vygotsky wrong (or vice versa) about > perezhivanie. And I hope I was paying attention and conscious of what I was > doing both times I used the term. > > Perhaps in the early Vygotsky where the perezhivanie of perezhivanie > comment appears he was using the term, perezhivanie in an everyday sense of > the term, but later it was used as a scientific term? > > David -- where does LSV write that consciousness begins at birth? Seems > important to know. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > > mike > > > > > > > > > For those like myself who never got past intro chemistry or physics, but > are interested in qualitative research, > this site might be of interest. I notice there is a blog on the topic as > well as a relevant resource page. Perfect prep for reading Martin's book! > :-) > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: TQR > Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM > Subject: TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 > To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu > > > [image: TQR Instagram] [image: > TQR Facebook] [image: TQR > Twitter] > > [image: The Qualitative Report] > > Trouble viewing this email? View in Browser > TQR Weekly 12-18-2017 [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/10/TQR-Oct17-Blog-1tat2sb.jpg] > qsrinternational.com%2Fnvivo%2Fnvivo-community%2Fblog% > 2Fextending-your-literature-review-with-nvivo-11-plu%3Futm_source%3DThe% > 2520Qualitative%2520Report%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_ > campaign%3DTQR%26utm_content%3Dextending%2520your% > 2520literature%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Car1248%40nova.edu% > 7C69cabdce919f47e0972e08d51507cb3c%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042 > ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636438045576404999&sdata=XwyUcYC6OZ0NiqeuJtkOf% > 2Fwawql4tcqjxufooyluBmc%3D&reserved=0> > *The > Qualitative Report Weekly * *TQR 9th Annual Conference > * > > - *Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Qualitative > Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah Thomas-Purcell (Updated > 12/18/2017) * > - *NVivo Webinar: Using NVivo as a Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > * > - *Pre-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to Doing Interpretative > Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by Jonathan A Smith > * > - *The Phenomenology of Qualitative Research: Still accepting > submissions on a case by case basis tqrc/ninth/>* > - *Schedule At A Glance (Updated 9/4/2017) > * > - *Featured Keynote Bios and Abstracts (Updated 12/18/2017)* > > > *Featured *Article > > *Reaction to Safety Equipment Technology in the Workplace and Implications: > A Study of the Firefighter?s Hood* > > > Brian W. Ward, University of Maryland > *Featured *Article > > *Music to Mend Heartache: Song Choices to Match, Change, and Distract Mood* > > > Rhiannon Kallis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > Anna V. Ortiz Juarez-Paz, Indiana University of Pennsylvania > *How To *Article > > *Following the Fl?neur: The Methodological Possibilities and Applications > of Fl?nerie in New Urban Spaces* > > > Jessica Rizk, McMaster University > Anton Birioukov, University of Ottawa > *How To *Article > > *Researcher Emotions as Data, a Tool and a Factor in Professional > Development* > > Liora Nutov, Gordon Academic College, Haifa, Israel > *Featured Blog* > > *Quirkos: What is qualitative analysis?* > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-large- > MAXQDA2018-1dzb7dw.png] > 2017_12_max18_large&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > *TQR Resource of the Week* > > *A Compendium of Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Resources* > learning-qualitative-research-resources/> > *News and Notes* > > - RW Connect: Why Market Research Should Borrow From Brands > borrow-from-brands/> > - anthro{dendum}: How I Write Interview Instruments ? #RoR2018 > interview-instruments-ror2018/> > - GreenBook Blog: Using Creativity to Improve Qualitative Outputs > design-using-creativity-to-improve-qualitative-outputs/> > - MAXQDA #ResearchforChange Grant Recipients Announcement > > - Accelerant Research: Excellence in Qualitative Recruitment: It?s in > our DNA > excellence-in-qualitative-recruitment.html> > - The new features of MAXQDA 2018 ? Free webinar, online, December 19th, > 2018. > - Research Design Review: The Use of Quotes & Bringing Transparency to > Qualitative Analysis > bringing-transparency-qualitative-analysis/> > - Focus Vision: Researchers? Voice: Research Techniques that Drive Human > Understanding > research-techniques-that-drive-human-understanding/> > - TQR Conference: Post-Conference Workshop: An Introduction to > Qualitative Meta-Synthesis by Ronald J. Chenail and Kamilah > Thomas-Purcell > (Updated 12/18/2017) > - TQR Conference: NVivo Webinar Added to TQR2018: Using NVivo as a > Research Tool (Updated 12/18/2017) > > > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/what-is-qualiatative- > analysis-tqr-1re2b92.jpg] > > *Calls for Conferences and Journals and Training Opportunities* > > - MAXQDA International Conference MQIC > ? Call for Posters > (Deadline: December 31, 2017) > - The Fourteenth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2018) > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icqi.org%2Fhome%2Fsubmission%2F&data= > 02%7C01%7Cron%40nova.edu%7C42555c40c518476e3a5108d4f49e65c1% > 7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636402408538851131&sdata= > SH70rnCLSDExvsXidis6IpDh%2BIaXA%2Fzz2SSrMWqZucA%3D&reserved=0> > ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 15, 2017) > - Mastering NVivo with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method-2-day-workshop> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, January 18-19, 2018 > - The H.L. ?Bud? Goodall, Jr. and Nick ?Gory? Trujillo ?It?s a Way of > Life? Award in Narrative Ethnography > 2017-1hjoeqs.pdf> ? > Call for Submissions (Deadline: January 31, 2018) > - Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) 5th ANNUAL > CONFERENCE > ? > Call > for Proposals (Deadline February 1, 2018) > - LEARNing Landscapes Journal Teaching and Learning with Stories > ? Calls for Submissions (Deadline: Feb. > 1, 2018) > - Mastering ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method > the-five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, February 12-13, 2018 > - MAXQDA Master Class ? Beyond Coding > beyond-coding>? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Qualitative Text Analysis > ? 1 > day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February 28 > - Transformative Mixed Methods in the Service of Social and Ecological > Justice > mixed-methods-service-social-ecological-justice> > ? > 1 day workshop, MAXQDA International Conference (MQIC), Berlin February > 28 > - Mastering MAXQDA with the Five-Level QDA method > five-level-qda-method> > ? > 2 day workshop, London, March 15-16, 2018 > - The Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work ?Transforming > Social Work? Gathering ? April 12 ? 15, 2018 > - Taos Institute World Share Books ? Call for Submissions > > (Deadline: > Open) > - MAXQDA Workshops online or face-to-face in several countries in > English, German, and Spanish > - Learn How and What to Code in NVivo 11 for Windows > How-and-What-to-Code-in-NVivo-11-for-Windows-description-and-link.pdf> > - Call for New TQR Editorial Board Members > board-members/> > > *Employment Opportunities* > > - Assistant Director Academic > 176623316&Title=Assistant%20Director%20Academic> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership > 176623822&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20in%20Educational%20Leadership> > ? Saint > Joseph?s University > - Associate Director Evaluation and Applied Research > 176624899&Title=Associate%20Director%20Evaluation%20and% > 20Applied%20Research> > ? University > of Cincinnati > - Design Researcher > 339938&job_id=1081577&utm_source=Indeed&show_desc=0> > ? Microsoft > - Institutional Research Analyst ? Data Manager > 176624340&Title=Institutional%20Research%20Analyst%20%2D%20Data%20Manager> > ? Peninsula > College > - Market Research Manager > Research-Manager-98faf958e44777e3?sjdu=Zzi_VW2ygsY1fzh3Ma9ZsE4zIT1NTXCwgF > BhdjeTC3PJt_z3kHJR8qrpHrtB3BN7oIepChTgVi50LvfggkaGCw&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > ? ComServe > Systems > - MSW Faculty > 176625149&Title=MSW%20Faculty> > ? Louisiana > College > - Part-Time Faculty ? ADV 509 Advertising Research & Planning > 176627158&Title=Part%2DTime%20Faculty%20%2D%20ADV%20509% > 20Advertising%20Research%20%26%20Planning> > ? Syracuse > University > - Postdoctoral Scholar of Civil & Environmental Engineering and > Construction, College of Engineering [R0106383] > 176627169&Title=Postdoctoral%20Scholar%20of%20Civil%20%26% > 20Environmental%20Engineering%20and%20Construction%2C% > 20College%20of%20Engineering%20%5BR0106383%5D> > ? University > of Nevada Las Vegas > - Principle Research Scientist > 176627008&Title=Principle%20Research%20Scientist> > ? Western > Governors University > - Research Assistant > MD-21205/447142600/> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - Research Associate > ? University > of Utah > - Research Program Coordinator > 176623605&Title=Research%20Program%20Coordinator> > ? Johns > Hopkins University > - UX Strategist > Strategist-021243a6c381a12c?sjdu=q7IOoCHuISN2aRXq8ScvWSkUEihUKT > ZNws310qnk1vG-0yhZ83fd18V3j_wpQu08VT-ssFnys7qUJ1cV06ahXCRGePqEuSrKv > RIOpc_H_KE&tk=1c1ak28pg18361oi> > -Avalere > Health > > [image: Powerful Tools II 2] > [image: > https://tqr.nova.edu/files/2017/12/TQR-2017-12-MAXQDA2018-2blybdv.png] > 2017_12_max18_small&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tqr_report> > > TQR | Nova Southeastern University | 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, > Florida 33314 > Lauderdale,+Florida+33314&entry=gmail&source=g> > -7796 > You received this email because you are subscribed to TQR. > To unsubscribe please click here . > > > > > > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner > From bjones@ucsd.edu Wed Dec 27 17:29:08 2017 From: bjones@ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] December 27 Test - IGNORE Message-ID: <2273efae-f8b5-4edd-87ec-e55e3f8fd2cb@ucsd.edu> Just some text to fill up the window... -- Bruce Jones Sys Admin, LCHC bjones@ucsd.edu 619-823-8281 -- From sfindlay@telus.net Wed Dec 27 17:48:45 2017 From: sfindlay@telus.net (Susie) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 17:48:45 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: December 27 Test - IGNORE In-Reply-To: UN1NeF3SpuQ9TUN1PeJphg References: UN1NeF3SpuQ9TUN1PeJphg Message-ID: <315E2EDD-F4A4-4764-84DF-70D0F442E91B@telus.net> Hi Bruce, I?ve been looking for a way to unsubscribe from this list but all my efforts have failed. Are you able to take care of it for me? Thank you, Susie Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 27, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Bruce Jones wrote: > > Just some text to fill up the window... > > > -- > Bruce Jones > Sys Admin, LCHC > bjones@ucsd.edu > 619-823-8281 > > -- From bjones@ucsd.edu Fri Dec 29 22:11:50 2017 From: bjones@ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:11:50 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] 12/29 test (ignore this too) Message-ID: <7cc37594-cf7c-85d3-8f5b-e68278f11f2f@ucsd.edu> Some more text so the message says nothing. -- Bruce Jones Sys Admin, LCHC bjones@ucsd.edu 619-823-8281 -- From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Dec 30 10:56:41 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 18:56:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Thanks bj Message-ID: Bruce has brought xmca back online. Happy New Year All Thanks bj Mike -- "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." - William Faulkner From blantonwe@gmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:37:15 2017 From: blantonwe@gmail.com (William Blanton) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 12:37:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thanks bj In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mike. Where is the connection. I don't want to ever leave it. We should gather a strong group and go to the future. We can design a 5D that can emerge in schools. Bill On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, mike cole wrote: > Bruce has brought xmca back online. > Happy New Year All > Thanks bj > Mike > -- > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > - William Faulkner From anamshane@gmail.com Sat Dec 30 15:15:36 2017 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:15:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thanks bj In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mike Bruce and all! Happy New Year! Ana On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:39 PM William Blanton wrote: > Thanks Mike. Where is the connection. I don't want to ever leave it. > We should gather a strong group and go to the future. We can design a > 5D that can emerge in schools. > > Bill > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Bruce has brought xmca back online. > > Happy New Year All > > Thanks bj > > Mike > > -- > > "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past." > > - William Faulkner > -- *Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D.* Independent Scholar, Professor of Education Dialogic Pedagogy Journal, deputy Editor-in-Chief (dpj.pitt.edu) e-mail: anamshane@gmail.com Phone: +1 267-334-2905