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

Sun Dec 17 05:24:19 PST 2017

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* (Nöth, 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 <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 Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> 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 <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 Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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
> >> <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 <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>
> >>
> >
>
>