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

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Huw, I am catching up and have not yet read the responses that follow the message below, but I wanted to stop by this entry to applaud your way of putting issues in such a positive (in the sense of looking forward to advance the argument rather than keeping arguing) and conciliatory way. I appreciate it very much, as well as I agree with the content, even if I can also see (as I am sure you do as well) that paying due attention and being clear about the lineage of concepts is also important. 

Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 December 2017 11:04
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can please
correct me if I am misrepresenting him:

Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural science. In
this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are a
secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is
presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they
achieve what is claimed.

Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does
actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research efforts.

Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest
(questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really relevant to
his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to the
trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other words,
his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is to
further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although a v.
strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which is
basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic.

>From this perspective, the second question is only particularly relevant to
the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this
(natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it is
beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not that
something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists)
meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the
qualifications of a larger project) sufficient.

My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it has
yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from
qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion) does
not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may argue
entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to such a
programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1).

I hope this helps!

Best,
Huw


On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not
> Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in
> context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its
> "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's.
>
> That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but
> context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond my
> intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of
> another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them in a
> pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their
> texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics and
> their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I
> substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern.
>
> For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse,
> which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an argument
> in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves on
> a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved
aggressively
> (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not
> accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and it
> does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my
> strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern.
>
> Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's
remark
> about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break
> the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't believe
> in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules as
> units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a
> one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules and
> for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying Vygotsky
> referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the
> promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God.
Wolff-Michael
> interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved
> creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use
Vygotsky's
> words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern.
>
> Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him.
>
> 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 Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >