[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

Thu Dec 14 17:26:43 PST 2017

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 <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
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 <dkellogg60@gmail.com> 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 
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil 
> > <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > 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
> >
> >
>

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>