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

[Huw Lloyd]

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 <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 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 <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>