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

[James Ma]

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
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *


On 15 December 2017 at 08:36, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
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 <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
> 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 <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 2:45 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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 <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>
> >
>


<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>