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

Fri Dec 15 16:03:59 PST 2017

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 <ablunden@mira.net> 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 <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> 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, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> 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 <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
> >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
> >>> *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 <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/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 Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> 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: "Сознание есть переживание
> переживаний,
> >>> точно таким же образом, как переживания просто суть переживания
> >> предметов"
> >>> (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 <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
> >>> *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 <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/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 Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> 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 <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
> >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>> *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: "Сознание есть переживание
> переживаний,
> >>> точно таким же образом, как переживания просто суть переживания
> >> предметов"
> >>> (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 [Bewußtsein] cannot ever be
> >>> anything else than conscious [bewußtes] 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. *scīre*] 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 <http://education2.uvic.ca/ faculty/mroth/
> >>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>>
> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >>> <https://www.sensepublishers. com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the-
> >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/
> >>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>
> >>>> *
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, 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
> >>> <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
> >>> <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> <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
> >>> <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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>