[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Fri Mar 31 12:05:22 PDT 2017

Thanks Andy. 

Concerning 1, I am afraid that 'failing to enquire into mediation' is what you find in most instances of the use of the term mediate and its different forms in the current empirical literature. But I'd be very interested in reading some empirical work that does indeed use the term or that approaches inquiry in the methodological sense that you refer to. 

Concerning 2, Huw does write a bit about that in the text he just shared.

Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent: 31 March 2017 12:52
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

My 2 cents ...

1. Both Hegel and C. S. Peirce promoted mediation not only
as essentially ubiquitous, but as *generative*, in the sense
that since every relation is mediated, every new relation
generates a new (mediating) relation. It is a method of
enquiry which is forever uncovering new relations. I would
call this the methodological aspect of mediation. To fail to
enquire into mediation is effectively to close off enquiry
and settle for some kind of dichotomy or taxonomy.

2. Vygotsky's *artefact mediation*, is a distinctive type of
mediation, to which other approaches to mind are largely
blind. Artefact mediation is not the answer to every problem
of psychology. And it wasn't for Vygotsky either.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making

On 31/03/2017 8:44 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> The title has a somewhat oxymoronic flavour to it, Alfredo.  Theorising
> gets more interesting when it consists of a minimum of a 3-term system, and
> in such a system one term can always be indexed as a mediating one in
> relation to the other two.  All the problems arise when these terms are
> reduced to 2-term systems (formal logic, statistical associations,
> descriptions based upon typed categories) in which the mediators are
> elements of a non-unitary analysis.
>
> The issues of misuse of 'mediators' as elements rather than as part of a
> unit is structurally similar to applying formal logic categories such as
> "every" and "there exists" to thinking in terms of complexes, in which
> these phrases merely limit the (1 term) bonding rather than applying to the
> (2 term) hierarchical constructs that they are about.  In LSV Vol. 1 we
> have a 3+ term analysis (dialectic) of the development of 1-term thinking
> (complexes) towards 2-term thinking (formal logic).
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 31 March 2017 at 06:21, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for sharing the article, Michael. And yes, considering those
>> copy-distribution issues is important in a forum like this. Is nice to be
>> able to check with you/us authors on how to best share our work.
>>
>> On the issue of Theorizing with/out mediators, Huw, in the article we do
>> recognize the viability of the option you suggest: not dismissing but
>> pursuing an 'adequate' (or 'more developed'  that may mean) understanding
>> of the concept. Still, we recommend the other route, and this is part of my
>> view.
>>
>> I think the problem concerns a confusion between treating mediation as a
>> sort of universal premise that 'applies' to everything or as an analytical
>> concept that 'explains' everything. For example, David K. in his post
>> treats the phrase that 'if mediation explains everything then it explains
>> nothing' as being analog to the sentence 'if perception applies to all
>> visible phenomena then it applies to none of them.' 'Applies' and
>> 'Explain', however, seem two very different words to me. You may want to
>> say that mediation applies to all and every human action/relation. But then
>> this is not to say that you are explaining any of them. As I view it,
>> mediation should not be thought of as an analytical unit in the same sense
>> that perezhivanie is, for it is not a concrete unit. In fact, following on
>> David's example, *perception* can indeed be accounted for if you develop
>> and further understand the category perezhivanie. And still, you will not
>> want to use perezhivanie to account for every and any aspect of human
>> existence. Nor every instance of 'human(ing)' will be perezhivanie (unless
>> you reserve the term 'human' to a very specific set of all the things we
>> human-looking animals do.).
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>> Sent: 31 March 2017 02:38
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!
>>
>> Thanks Michael.
>> Establishing fair use in the xmca community seems an important task.
>>
>> Your solution works given current uncertainties.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mike, all,
>>> Because I don't know what big companies can do to us if we violate signed
>>> copyright release, I am more than hesitant to send the type-set version
>>> they published. However, I am appending the final version of the
>> manuscript
>>> that prior to acceptance.
>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael --
>>>>
>>>> XMCA has been operating as an educational collective among whom
>> relevant
>>>> written materials are circulated as they are needed for the the
>> members'
>>>> education.
>>>>
>>>> Would it incur Springer's wrath to make the paper directly available?
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all, I did not realize that my reference wasn't updated. The paper
>>> is
>>>>> here:
>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-016-9376-0
>>>>>
>>>>> and by personal request Alfredo or I will mail a copy to those not
>>>>> operating at a uni with access to Springer Link.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David, you will disagree even more with this one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (in press). Theorizing with/out
>>> "mediators."
>>>>>> Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But people like Feliks Mikhailov, and also Ekaterina Zavershneva
>>>> indicate
>>>>>> that toward the end of his life, Vygotsy was moving away from
>>>> mediation.
>>>>> We
>>>>>> give an extended argument for theorizing without mediators in the
>>>>> article.
>>>>>> But I hope you understand that I am not out to interpret and find
>> out
>>>>> what
>>>>>> Vygotsky really said even if he did not say it. I think you are
>> well
>>>>>> positioned to do THAT kind of research. I want to move on. And,
>>>> frankly,
>>>>> I
>>>>>> have no clue what people are saying when they write that something
>> is
>>>>>> mediated. It seems to me that they are hiding or refraining from
>>> going
>>>>>> after what I am interested in. I am not interested in knowing that
>> a
>>>> tool
>>>>>> mediates something. I am interested in what the tool actually does,
>>>> what
>>>>>> are the events in which tools participate, shape people and get
>>> shaped
>>>> by
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, all this is about finding suitable discourses, and
>>>>>> descriptions, for doing the kinds of things we want to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, David Kellogg <
>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Roth article I would recommend isn't the editorial,
>> but
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> this one:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roth, W-M. 2007. On Mediation: Towards a Cultural Historical
>>>>>>> Understanding.
>>>>>>> Theory and Psychology 17 (5): 655-680.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a lot I disagree with in this paper (e.g. I disagree with
>>> the
>>>>> idea
>>>>>>> that if mediation "explains" everything then it explains
>> nothing--it
>>>> is
>>>>>>> like saying that if perception applies to all visible phenomena
>> then
>>>> it
>>>>>>> applies to none of them). But here's why I prefer it to Saeed's
>>> paper:
>>>>>>> a) Roth gets to concrete examples from direct experience almost
>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>> (fish feeding, on p. 656). This gives me something to go back to
>>> when
>>>> I
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> lost in abstraction, and I need it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) Instead of using Theory A to illuminate Theory B, Roth goes
>> back
>>>> into
>>>>>>> the historical origins of Theory A and discovers, immanently,
>> Theory
>>>> B,
>>>>> C,
>>>>>>> etc.. This has two advantages: it avoids chalk-and-cheese
>>> eclecticism,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it helps me understand how Theory A was formed in the first place.
>>>> With
>>>>>>> Saeed's paper, I find myself missing: 1) an account of the
>> CRITICAL
>>>>>>> DISTINCTIONS between the two theories, 2) an explanation of how
>> each
>>>>> MAKES
>>>>>>> UP for what the other lacks, and 3) some argument for long term
>>>>>>> COMPATABILITY, some explication of why the emulsion will not
>>>>> re-separate,
>>>>>>> like vinegar and oil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) For Vygotsky--no, for mediation more generally--the key problem
>>> is
>>>>>>> volition, free will, choice. Vygotsky once said that the most
>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>> problem in the whole of psychology, bar none, is what a human
>> being
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> really do in the situation of Buridan's donkey (that is a
>> situation
>>> of
>>>>>>> volition, of free will, of choice where the outcomes were either
>>>>>>> apparently
>>>>>>> equal or equally unknown). This isn't true of DST, which has, as
>>> Saeed
>>>>>>> admits, an "emergentist" account of volition (to put it
>>> uncharitably,
>>>>>>> handwaving and magic). At the very least, choice is late emerging
>>> in a
>>>>> DST
>>>>>>> account, and that makes, for example, the child's early and
>>>>>>> successful acquisition of speech very hard to explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, Saeed--I DID appreciate the part on p. 86 where you
>>> remind
>>>> us
>>>>>>> that learning and development are distinct but linked. As
>>>> Wolff-Michael
>>>>>>> says, the point has been made before, but I think that we've got
>> to
>>>> keep
>>>>>>> saying this, until people really see that mixing up "microgenesis"
>>> and
>>>>>>> ontogenesis is, in our own time, the same kind of error that
>> mixing
>>> up
>>>>>>> ontogenesis and phylogenesis was in Vygotsky's. If I read one more
>>>>> article
>>>>>>> which invokes the ZPD for some trivial incident of learning, I'm
>>>>> getting a
>>>>>>> tattoo that says: "Look here, mate, just because it didn't kill ya
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> mean it made ya any stronger".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>